On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:09:36 -0400 Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ryan Hill wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:39:00 +0200 > > Fabian Groffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> On 15-07-2008 15:32:32 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote: > >>> all, > >>> > >>> I'm at the point that -Wl,-O1 appears to be successful. It's time > >>> to toss on -Wl,--hash-style=gnu. The issue is that we need glibc > >>> 2.5 or higher and not mips. So one solution is to put the > >>> following: > >>> > >>> default/linux: LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1,--hash-style=gnu" > >>> default/linux/mips: LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1" > >>> > >>> However, this means we'll have to put a has_version check in > >>> profile.bashrc of default/linux, which seems a bit cludgy.. > >>> > >>> Any suggestions? Comments? > > > > Also >sys-devel/binutils-2.17. > > > >> I'm just wondering... unless it has changed since last time I > >> installed Gentoo Linux, but isn't the installation manual on > >> purpose conservative with CFLAGS? make.conf.example also does not > >> much more than "-march -O2 -pipe". -O1 to the linker feels > >> conservative to me. Still, do we really need to go any further? > >> Why not make additional pointers to possible values for LDFLAGS > >> like we do for C(XX)FLAGS in the installation manual? > > > > +1. > > > > The default is already to generate a GNU style hash when available. > > I really don't know why we need to screw with it further. > > > > > > It's actually not. In Gentoo we patch this to use 'both' as the > default. Yes, which generates a GNU style hash (along with a SysV one). True? If both are available and the linker understands .gnu.hash, it uses it. Unless having both is detrimental due to the added size (i honestly don't know), this seems the best option to me. -- gcc-porting, by design, by neglect treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
