On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 02:48:47PM -0700, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 14:05 -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 08:22:57AM -0700, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 23:54 -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > > * Condition CONFIG_GC_SECTIONS on presence of a recent binutils > > > > > > Er, I missed something -- why does this need a recent binutils? We've > > > been building kernels with --gc-sections for years, at least on some > > > platforms. > > > > First, I think its prudent to guarantee that a well behaved version of > > binutils (wrt. garbage collection) is being used. No? > > Are recent versions of binutils known to misbehave? It's not as if > --gc-sections is a new thing.
Not that I know, just being (overly) safe. > > Second reason is the newly added --print-gc-sections option, which: > > ... needs to be a CONFIG option anyway so _that_ CONFIG option can > require the new binutils. Agreed. > > 2) Its very useful for developers to > > > > - Debug breakage caused by gc-section misbehaviour. > > - Easily check what symbols are being swept. > > Some people will care -- many won't, but might want to build with > --gc-sections anyway. No reason not to let them do so, surely? Just > require new binutils if you want the --print-gc-sections stuff. Agreed. _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.laptop.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
