| 1 |
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:39:00 +0200 |
| 2 |
Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 15-07-2008 15:32:32 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote: |
| 5 |
> > all, |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > I'm at the point that -Wl,-O1 appears to be successful. It's time |
| 8 |
> > to toss on -Wl,--hash-style=gnu. The issue is that we need glibc |
| 9 |
> > 2.5 or higher and not mips. So one solution is to put the following: |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > default/linux: LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1,--hash-style=gnu" |
| 12 |
> > default/linux/mips: LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1" |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > However, this means we'll have to put a has_version check in |
| 15 |
> > profile.bashrc of default/linux, which seems a bit cludgy.. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > Any suggestions? Comments? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Also >sys-devel/binutils-2.17. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> I'm just wondering... unless it has changed since last time I |
| 22 |
> installed Gentoo Linux, but isn't the installation manual on purpose |
| 23 |
> conservative with CFLAGS? make.conf.example also does not much more |
| 24 |
> than "-march -O2 -pipe". -O1 to the linker feels conservative to |
| 25 |
> me. Still, do we really need to go any further? Why not make |
| 26 |
> additional pointers to possible values for LDFLAGS like we do for |
| 27 |
> C(XX)FLAGS in the installation manual? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
+1. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
The default is already to generate a GNU style hash when available. |
| 32 |
I really don't know why we need to screw with it further. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gcc-porting, by design, by neglect |
| 37 |
treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect |
| 38 |
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |
Archives