Keith Owens writes:
> kbuild 2.5 splits link order into three categories. Those that must
> come first, in the order they are specified - LINK_FIRST. Those that
> must come last, in the order they are specified - LINK_LAST.
Keith, this sounds like a K-ludge.
Take the instance where we need to link a.o first, z.o second, f.o third
and p.o fourth. How does LINK_FIRST / LINK_LAST guarantee this?
LINK_FIRST = a.o z.o
LINK_LAST = f.o p.o
But then what guarantees that 'a.o' will be linked before 'z.o'?
A first/last implementation can *not* specify precisely a link order without
guaranteeing that the order of the LINK_FIRST *and* the LINK_LAST objects
is preserved, which incidentally is the same requirement for the obj-y
implementation.
I don't see what this LINK_FIRST / LINK_LAST gains us other than more
complexity for zero gain.
_____
|_____| ------------------------------------------------- ---+---+-
| | Russell King [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- ---
| | | | http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/~rmk/aboutme.html / / |
| +-+-+ --- -+-
/ | THE developer of ARM Linux |+| /|\
/ | | | --- |
+-+-+ ------------------------------------------------- /\\\ |
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
