| 1 |
2008-07-16 04:28:33 Ryan Hill napisał(a): |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:09:36 -0400 |
| 3 |
> Doug Goldstein <cardoe@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:39:00 +0200 |
| 7 |
> > > Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > >> On 15-07-2008 15:32:32 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote: |
| 10 |
> > >>> all, |
| 11 |
> > >>> |
| 12 |
> > >>> I'm at the point that -Wl,-O1 appears to be successful. It's time |
| 13 |
> > >>> to toss on -Wl,--hash-style=gnu. The issue is that we need glibc |
| 14 |
> > >>> 2.5 or higher and not mips. So one solution is to put the |
| 15 |
> > >>> following: |
| 16 |
> > >>> |
| 17 |
> > >>> default/linux: LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1,--hash-style=gnu" |
| 18 |
> > >>> default/linux/mips: LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1" |
| 19 |
> > >>> |
| 20 |
> > >>> However, this means we'll have to put a has_version check in |
| 21 |
> > >>> profile.bashrc of default/linux, which seems a bit cludgy.. |
| 22 |
> > >>> |
| 23 |
> > >>> Any suggestions? Comments? |
| 24 |
> > > |
| 25 |
> > > Also >sys-devel/binutils-2.17. |
| 26 |
> > > |
| 27 |
> > >> I'm just wondering... unless it has changed since last time I |
| 28 |
> > >> installed Gentoo Linux, but isn't the installation manual on |
| 29 |
> > >> purpose conservative with CFLAGS? make.conf.example also does not |
| 30 |
> > >> much more than "-march -O2 -pipe". -O1 to the linker feels |
| 31 |
> > >> conservative to me. Still, do we really need to go any further? |
| 32 |
> > >> Why not make additional pointers to possible values for LDFLAGS |
| 33 |
> > >> like we do for C(XX)FLAGS in the installation manual? |
| 34 |
> > > |
| 35 |
> > > +1. |
| 36 |
> > > |
| 37 |
> > > The default is already to generate a GNU style hash when available. |
| 38 |
> > > I really don't know why we need to screw with it further. |
| 39 |
> > > |
| 40 |
> > > |
| 41 |
> > |
| 42 |
> > It's actually not. In Gentoo we patch this to use 'both' as the |
| 43 |
> > default. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> Yes, which generates a GNU style hash (along with a SysV one). True? |
| 46 |
> If both are available and the linker understands .gnu.hash, it uses |
| 47 |
> it. Unless having both is detrimental due to the added size (i honestly |
| 48 |
> don't know), this seems the best option to me. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
.hash sections slightly increasize size of executables/libraries. |
| 51 |
-Wl,--hash-style=gnu is a completely safe flag (on architectures which support |
| 52 |
.gnu.hash), so having it in default LDFLAGS wouldn't cause any problems. |
| 53 |
Having 2 or 3 flags in LDFLAGS isn't too screwing. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
Using -Wl,--hash-style=gnu would also allow for easier detection of packages |
| 56 |
which ignore LDFLAGS. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
-- |
| 59 |
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis |
Archives