[PATCH] Enable building glibc with gold.
Mike Frysinger
vapier@gentoo.org
Thu Jan 10 19:18:00 GMT 2013
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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/attachments/20130110/11af4e46/attachment.sig>
More information about the Libc-alpha
mailing list