| 1 |
On Saturday, August 07, 2010 20:11:42 Markos Chandras wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 05:32:42PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Saturday, August 07, 2010 12:32:31 Markos Chandras wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > It seems like few of our fellow developers don't know how to track down |
| 5 |
> > > packages that don't respect LDFLAGS. Adding -Wl,--hash-style=gnu is a |
| 6 |
> > > good way to do that. I would like to see this linker flag enabled by |
| 7 |
> > > default on LDFLAGS (or at least for the dev/ profiles for now). Do you |
| 8 |
> > > agree? |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > it isnt a valid flag for everyone. it requires a new enough binutils |
| 11 |
> > (not too big of a deal), a new enough glibc (also not too big of a |
| 12 |
> > deal), and you cant be a mips target (glibc support is broken). support |
| 13 |
> > does exist in uClibc, but only in recent versions (this is an issue), |
| 14 |
> > and hasnt been widely tested for many targets. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> We could at least enable that on x86/amd64 dev profiles (since only devs |
| 17 |
> are supposed to use them and they are the most used arches among us) just |
| 18 |
> to get some more feedback and fix the packages before they reach the end |
| 19 |
> users. This will reduce the bug # and make sure that --as-needed is |
| 20 |
> respected in a broader range of packages |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
obviously you only mean linux x86/amd64 dev profiles. i dont have a strong |
| 23 |
opinion on that small subset in either direction. |
| 24 |
-mike |
Archives