Content:
3.a.
The Problem
Sometimes it occurs that gcc bails out with an error message like the
following:
Code Listing1.1: A typical gcc error message
.libs/assert.o: relocation R_X86_64_32 against `a local symbol' can not be used
when making a shared object; recompile with -fPIC .libs/assert.o: could not
read symbols: Bad value
There are several different types of causes for such an error. This HOWTO will
explain all of them and show how to fix them.
3.b.
What is PIC?
PIC is an abbreviation for
Position-Independent Code
. The following is
an excerpt of the
Wikipedia article
about position-independent code:
"In computing, position-independent code (PIC) or position-independent
executable (PIE) is object code that can execute at different locations in
memory. PIC is commonly used for shared libraries, so that the same library
code can be mapped to a location in each application (using the virtual memory
system) where it won't overlap the application or other shared libraries. PIC
was also used on older computer systems lacking an MMU, so that the operating
system could keep applications away from each other.
Position-independent code can be copied to any memory location without
modification and executed, unlike relocatable code, which requires special
processing by a link editor or program loader to make it suitable for execution
at a given location. Code must generally be written or compiled in a special
fashion in order to be position independent. Instructions that refer to
specific memory addresses, such as absolute branches, must be replaced with
equivalent program counter relative instructions. The extra indirection may
cause PIC code to be less efficient, although modern processors are designed to
ameliorate this."
—Wikipedia Encyclopaedia
On certain architectures (AMD64 amongst them), shared libraries
must
be
"PIC-enabled".
3.c.
What are "relocations"?
Again, from Wikipedia:
"In computer science, relocation refers to the process of replacing symbolic
references or names of libraries with actual usable addresses in memory before
running a program. It is typically done by the linker during compilation,
although it can be done at run-time by a loader. Compilers or assemblers
typically generate the executable with zero as the lower-most, starting
address. Before the execution of object code, these addresses should be
adjusted so that they denote the correct runtime addresses."
—Wikipedia Encyclopaedia
With these terms defined, we can finally have a look at the different scenarios
where breakage occurs:
3.d.
Case 1: Broken compiler
At least GCC 3.4 is known to have a broken implementation of the
-fvisibility-inlines-hidden
flag. The use of this flag is therefore
highly discouraged, reported bugs are usually marked as RESOLVED INVALID. See
bug 108872
for an example of a
typical error message caused by this flag.
3.e.
Case 2: Broken `-fPIC' support checks in configure
Many
configure
tools check whether the compiler supports the
-fPIC
flag or not. They do so by compiling a minimalistic program with the
-fPIC
flag and checking
stderr
. If the compiler prints *any*
warnings, it is assumed that the
-fPIC
flag is not supported by the
compiler and is therefore abandoned. Unfortunately, if the user specifies a
non-existing flag (i.e. C++-only flags in
CFLAGS
or flags introduced by
newer versions of GCC but unknown to older ones), GCC prints a warning too,
resulting in borkage.
To prevent this kind of breakage, the AMD64 profiles use a bashrc that filters
out invalid flags in
C[XX]FLAGS
.
See bug
bug 122208
for an
example.
3.f.
Case 3: Lack of `-fPIC' flag in the software to be built
This is the most common case. It is a real bug in the build system and should
be fixed in the ebuild, preferably with a patch that is sent upstream.
Assuming the error message looks like this:
Code Listing6.1: A sample error message
.libs/assert.o: relocation R_X86_64_32 against `a local symbol' can not be used
when making a shared object; recompile with -fPIC .libs/assert.o: could not
read symbols: Bad value
This means that the file
assert.o
was not compiled with the
-fPIC
flag, which it should. When you fix this kind of error, make sure
only objects that are used in shared libraries are compiled with
-fPIC
.
In this case, globally adding
-fPIC
to
C[XX]FLAGS
resolves the
issue, although this practice is discouraged because the executables end up
being PIC-enabled, too.
Note:
Adding the
-fPIC
flag to the linking command or
LDFLAGS
won't
help.
3.g.
Case 4: Linking dynamically against static archives
Sometimes a package tries to build shared libraries using statically built
archives which are not PIC-enabled. There are two main reasons why this
happens:
Often it is the result of mixing
USE=static
and
USE=-static
. If a
library package can be built statically by setting
USE=static
, it
usually doesn't create a
.so
file but only a
.a
archive. However, when GCC is given the
-l
flag to link to said (dynamic
or static) library, it falls back to the static archive when it can't find a
shared lib. In this case, the preferred solution is to build the static library
using the
-fPIC
flag too.
Warning:
Only build the static archive with
-fPIC
on AMD64. On other
architectures this is unneeded and will have a performance impact at execution
time.
See
bug 88360
and
mysql bug 8796
for an example.
Sometimes it is also the case that a library isn't intended to be a shared
library at all, e.g. because it makes heavy usage of global variables. In this
case the solution is to turn the to-be-built shared library into a static one.
See
bug 131460
for an example.
Code Listing7.1: A sample error message
gcc -fPIC -DSHARED_OBJECT -c lex.yy.c
gcc -shared -o html2txt.so lex.yy.o -lfl
usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.1/../../../../x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ld:
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.1/../../../../lib64/libfl.a(libyywrap.o):
relocation R_X86_64_32 against `a local symbol' can not be used when making a
shared object; recompile with -fPIC
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.1/../../../../lib64/libfl.a: could not
read symbols: Bad value