Did anyone have any objections to this patch. Not sure if anyone had any
craving to use --build-id. If not I'll check it in in the next week.
Jerone
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Manoel Rebelo Abranches <
mrab...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Hi made a patch to add --build-id=none to TARGET_LDFLAGS instead of
> MODULE_LDFLAGS. with this it is passed to ld when linking kernel.elf.
>
> without this kernel.elf creates a additional LOAD segment with a virtual
> address in PhysAddr witch causes problem with OF and causes
> grub-mkelfimage to not work correctly.
>
> On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 13:34 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 19:14 +0200, Vesa Jääskeläinen wrote:
> >
> > > No no. I mean just KERNEL_LDFLAGS like comparison to MODULE_LDFLAGS. No
> > > elf or nothing like that. Is there any problem if one provides this
> > > setting even on x86 if linker recognizes it? (what is being tested
> > > here). PPC_BUILD_ID_FLAG just sounds too specific.
> > >
> > > Isn't EFI also using ELF? I assume this would be beneficial also there.
> >
> > I agree, we should not be be multiplying hacks. There is already code
> > adding -Wl,--build-id=none to TARGET_LDFLAGS. It's a macro
> > grub_PROG_LD_BUILD_ID_NONE in aclocal.m4. What's wrong with it? Does
> > it fail to add -Wl,--build-id=none on PowerPC or is TARGET_LDFLAGS not
> > used to link kernel.elf?
> >
> > What are the symptoms caused by not using -Wl,--build-id=none?
> >
> --
> Best Regards,
>
> Manoel Abranches <mrab...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> IBM Linux Technology Center Brazil
>
> _______________________________________________
> Grub-devel mailing list
> Grub-devel@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
>
>
_______________________________________________
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
