v p wrote: > I'm going to install LFS and therefore have a question: can I define > CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS and LDFLAGS to contain '-s' flag and compile > EVERYTHING with it, even GCC and GLIBC? Book says nobody must use
You can do anything you like including breaking your build by deviating ignorantly from instructions. FBBG. > 'strip --strip-all' because of the possibility to damage the system > but I won't use the 'strip' utility but I force gcc/ld just _not to > include_ the symbols. Google (strip glibc gcc "-s"): http://hr.uoregon.edu/davidrl/glibc.html (troubleshooting section) http://inferno.slug.org/hints/stripped-down.txt http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hints/downloads/files/small-lfs.txt > What exactly problems would I have if using the flag? How can I SEE > the problems (may be, programs will be linked statically instead of > dynamically or something else)? Run the test suites.. if they pass, you're probably alright. If not, relax your optimizations. > Don't worry please about my using custom CFLAGS while building GCC and > GLIBC, I know it's not safe, but the question concerns only '-s' flag > and the reasons why _it_ shouldn't be used _in principle_. In principle, "-s" should not be used if it breaks the build. Same goes for anything. As I see it, it's that simple. Can't hurt to try it anyhow unless you're severely time deficient. >From the gcc linker docs, "-s" - Remove all symbol table and relocation information from the executable. >From the uoregon site above, "...If you've stripped the symbols off your glibc library (using strip(1) or the traditional LDFLAGS=-s variable), then you've gotten yourself into trouble. No symbols equals nothing to link to. You'll need to recompile your glibc library..." I don't know how much of the above is true/current but you're welcome to Google more to find out. Good luck, Jeremy. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
