This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: forcing the linker to be a particular one (i.e. gold vs bfd)
On 01/12/2011 11:32 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Matthias Klose<doko@ubuntu.com> wrote:
On 12.01.2011 19:39, H.J. Lu wrote:
The more options we add to gcc the more problems
in gcc version switch(back and forward) appear for gcc users.
If you want to hide it from gcc driver, then you should do what
Ian suggested to use -B.
-B is acceptable for somebody who knows where an alternative ld is
installed. It's horrible for anybody else who needs to figure out the
location where an alternative ld is installed. This includes upstreams and
distribution makers.
That is why I suggested something like "gcc -flinker=ld.bfd|ld.gold"
Hi all,
H.J., you suggest the same what was already done.
In Nick's gcc patch. Except gcc option name.
See link in my original e-mail.
http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/gcccvs/branches/sid/gcc-4.4/debian/patches/gold-and-ld.diff?view=log&pathrev=4512
So. We have:
1. "-B" solution is unacceptable for package-based distributions.
In this case binutils-gold package must be introduced.
With different install-root. And so on...
2. Nick's patch implementing linker switch in gcc.
The patch may be slightly emended and pushed into gcc.
3. Matthias promises to implement the switch into
binutils. This patch may be pushed into binutils.
Am I correct?
IMO gcc/binutils maintainers opinion is important
here. What is the right place to do linker switch?
Ian?
Others?
Thank you
Vladimir Simonov