On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Markos Chandras <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 05:32:42PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> On Saturday, August 07, 2010 12:32:31 Markos Chandras wrote: >> > It seems like few of our fellow developers don't know how to track down >> > packages that don't respect LDFLAGS. Adding -Wl,--hash-style=gnu is a good >> > way to do that. I would like to see this linker flag enabled by default on >> > LDFLAGS (or at least for the dev/ profiles for now). Do you agree? >> >> it isnt a valid flag for everyone. it requires a new enough binutils (not >> too >> big of a deal), a new enough glibc (also not too big of a deal), and you cant >> be a mips target (glibc support is broken). support does exist in uClibc, >> but >> only in recent versions (this is an issue), and hasnt been widely tested for >> many targets. >> > We could at least enable that on x86/amd64 dev profiles (since only devs are > supposed to use them and they are the most used arches among us) just to get > some more > feedback and fix the packages before they reach the end users. This will > reduce the bug # and make sure that --as-needed is respected in a broader > range of packages
Why not just set some LDFLAGS that totally won't work (-Wl, taters) and then assume anything that actually compiles with those flags set does not respect LDFLAGS. Set that up on a tinderbox instead of making users do it. -A >> >> considering the only real benefit is that it automates a QA check, i dont >> think it's worth the hassle. newer Gentoo binutils already enables .gnu.hash >> support by default, so people get the speed increase transparently. > Agreed > > > -- > Markos Chandras (hwoarang) > Gentoo Linux Developer > Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org > Key ID: 441AC410 > Key FP: AAD0 8591 E3CD 445D 6411 3477 F7F7 1E8E 441A C410 >
