| 1 |
Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:39:00 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On 15-07-2008 15:32:32 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> all, |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> I'm at the point that -Wl,-O1 appears to be successful. It's time |
| 9 |
>>> to toss on -Wl,--hash-style=gnu. The issue is that we need glibc |
| 10 |
>>> 2.5 or higher and not mips. So one solution is to put the following: |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>>> default/linux: LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1,--hash-style=gnu" |
| 13 |
>>> default/linux/mips: LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1" |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>>> However, this means we'll have to put a has_version check in |
| 16 |
>>> profile.bashrc of default/linux, which seems a bit cludgy.. |
| 17 |
>>> |
| 18 |
>>> Any suggestions? Comments? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Also >sys-devel/binutils-2.17. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
>> I'm just wondering... unless it has changed since last time I |
| 23 |
>> installed Gentoo Linux, but isn't the installation manual on purpose |
| 24 |
>> conservative with CFLAGS? make.conf.example also does not much more |
| 25 |
>> than "-march -O2 -pipe". -O1 to the linker feels conservative to |
| 26 |
>> me. Still, do we really need to go any further? Why not make |
| 27 |
>> additional pointers to possible values for LDFLAGS like we do for |
| 28 |
>> C(XX)FLAGS in the installation manual? |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> +1. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> The default is already to generate a GNU style hash when available. |
| 33 |
> I really don't know why we need to screw with it further. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
It's actually not. In Gentoo we patch this to use 'both' as the default. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
Doug Goldstein <cardoe@g.o> |
| 42 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe/ |
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives