On Mon 2017-06-19 17:45:21, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 12:04:26 +0200 > Pavel Machek <pa...@ucw.cz> wrote: > > > On Fri 2017-06-02 22:54:54, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > > > Switch from incremental build to thin archives for packaging built-in.o. > > > binutils version must be bumped to 2.20. Proposed patch for 4.13. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <npig...@gmail.com> > > > > You should explain any advantage this is supposed to have. > > Hi Pavel, > > You're right, sorry for this, I was spamming the list with a quick > hack to try to get 0day to pick up the patch. > > Most of the discussion has been going on in other patch series (check > linux-kbuild). > > There are 3 main categories of advantages. > > First is reduced size of intermediate artifacts in the build output > tree. > > Second is that incremental linking constrains the linker because it > has to assemble each section in the output as a sequence of those > section from the inputs. So the more incremental linking, the more > you constrain the linker, and this can end up resulting in link fail > with large kernels on some architectures. > > Third is that some link-time optimizations are not compatible or > not very optimal with incremental linking, whereas thin archives > is much more amenable to such things.
Thanks for explanation. I checked, and binutils version bumb will not
affect me, but...
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
