Re: [PATCH] Enable building glibc with gold.

[Carlos O'Donell <carlos at systemhalted dot org>]

On 01/10/2013 01:28 PM, 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.

So add a feature test for -fuse-ld, then if gold is detected as
the default linker add `-fuse-ld=bfd' to the CFLAGS and continue
the build?

That would technically fix BZ#14995 [1].

Cheers,
Carlos.

[1] http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14995