On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 12:19:29AM +0100, Ian Kumlien wrote: > +# Define static compilation flags > +STATIC_CFLAGS = $(CFLAGS) -static -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections > +STATIC_LDFLAGS = -Wl,--gc-sections > +STATIC_LIBS = $(LIBS) -lpthread
> +btrfs.static: $(static_objects) btrfs.static.o help.static.o > $(static_cmds_objects) > + @echo " [LD] $@" > + $(Q)$(CC) $(STATIC_CFLAGS) -o btrfs.static btrfs.static.o help.static.o > $(static_cmds_objects) \ > + $(static_objects) $(STATIC_LDFLAGS) $(STATIC_LIBS) -static belongs into LDFLAGS, it's propagated to the link phase through CFLAGS which is not IMO clean. As the point is to make the static version as small as possible I think it's ok to separate the built objects and name the binary differently from the normal one. Also, from distro side, I can build both targets from within one package without nonstandard build steps (make, copy, clean, make, copy/rename). I'll fix the -static flag locally and add this patch to integration. david -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
