On 27/05/15 09:47, Martin Lucina wrote:
On Wednesday, 27.05.2015 at 10:42, Justin Cormack wrote:
What is the case for not just having a linker that accepts more
options like -Wl,--rumprun-xen or -Wl,--rumprun-kvm in order to decide
what to do?
From experience with getting existing software to build on rumprun, it's
*really really painful* convincing existing build systems to add arbitrary
additional linker flags in the right place.
Yes.
Plus, the model of cc/ld producing the final binary is not compatible
with multiple executables, which I still think we should support some day.
Also, the rumpbake link phase would be the right place to e.g. link in a
static root filesystem. This is not something you want to specify as a
normal linker flag as part of building the application binary.
I'm not sure if that argument holds water, rootfs could be another
special linker flag. You "normally" don't want to specify the kernel
drivers when building application binaries either.
But, anyway, I think the "painful" argument alone is a showstopper. If
we keep the compile&link phase normal, the Makefiles will never know
what hit them ;)
