Re: [PATCH] Enable building glibc with gold.

[Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>]

On Thursday 10 January 2013 13:28:05 H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Carlos O'Donell <codonell@redhat.com> 
wrote:
> > On 01/10/2013 12:05 AM, Roland McGrath wrote:
> >> The changes in question allow more build environments through the
> >> existing filter of "good enough to try building" that we enforce with
> >> configure checks.  It's wrong to let through environments that we
> >> aren't sure work and we have some reason to think don't.
> > 
> > Right, and that's where we have an issue of consensus.
> > 
> > What do we want to guarantee with our configure checks?
> > 
> >> I already find it easy enough that I think time would be spent better
> >> diagnosing the remaining problems with gold than frittering about
> >> this.  But fine, make it easier as long as you do it without
> >> regressing things like the build environment checks and without
> >> introducing unnecessary hair.  A scary-looking maintainer-only option
> >> to disable the build environment checks or turn them into warnings is
> >> certainly fine and appropriate.  I don't have sources in front of me,
> >> but perhaps --disable-sanity-checks is already that or close enough
> >> that it's easy to change it to be that.
> > 
> > No, after sleeping on it I realize that you're right, such a
> > super-secret option is not what our users need.
> > 
> > Our users need a working glibc + gold configuration.
> 
> -fuse-ld=gold is a well localized change.  It can be easily backported
> to older branches.  I backported it to hjl/gold/gcc-4_7-branch.

that's great (i'm debating adding to gentoo's 4.6/4.7 branches), but that 
doesn't change the answer to the question "does glibc work correctly when 
linked w/gold"
-mike

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.