| 1 |
On 29-06-2008 20:28:39 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 23:15 Sun 29 Jun , Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 29-06-2008 07:29:57 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On Saturday 28 June 2008, Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis kirjoitti: |
| 6 |
> > > > > I would like to suggest that default LDFLAGS in Gentoo contain the |
| 7 |
> > > > > following flags: "-Wl,-O1,--hash-style=gnu,--sort-common". |
| 8 |
> > > > > |
| 9 |
> > > > > -O1 enables some basic optimizations. |
| 10 |
> > > > |
| 11 |
> > > > At least adding -O1 should not be problematic. I think vapier was |
| 12 |
> > > > already suggesting this quite a while ago. |
| 13 |
> > > |
| 14 |
> > > imo -Wl,-O1 should go into base |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > I prefer not. Please only on profiles that use GNU binutils as linker. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> That's the rule, not the exception, so I think that profiles with |
| 19 |
> non-gnu linkers should revert it. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
In the current world of gentoo-x86 it is the rule. But what will you do |
| 22 |
once Sun Studio becomes open source, and you want to allow people that |
| 23 |
like to have better performance to use it? What if Gentoo Prefix ever |
| 24 |
gets merged back into gentoo-x86? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
How can you easily revert it in a profile? Using strip-ldflags alike? |
| 27 |
That feels nasty to me. If it is trivial to remove it again, |
| 28 |
considering there may be more in LDFLAGS, then it is less of a problem |
| 29 |
to me. Maybe there is such a way, and I just missed it. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 34 |
Gentoo on a different level |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives