On 04-10-2009 13:13:30 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> +# @FUNCTION: no-as-needed
> +# @RETURN: Flag to disable asneeded behavior for use with append-ldflags.
> +no-as-needed() {
> + case $($(tc-getLD) -v 2>&1 + *GNU*) # GNU ld
> + echo "-Wl,--no-as-needed" ;;
> + e
Fabian Groffen wrote:
>>> Perhaps we could add a new function to the flag-o-matic that does the
>>> CHOST check, and appends the flag, so the check code wouldn't have to be
>>> duplicated in ebuilds? It should be rather trivial.
>>
>> ok, chost check would be cheap. how about,
>> usage: append-ldfl
On 04-10-2009 00:11:06 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Perhaps we could add a new function to the flag-o-matic that does the
> > CHOST check, and appends the flag, so the check code wouldn't have to be
> > duplicated in ebuilds? It should be rather trivial.
> >
>
> ok, chost check would be cheap
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Fabian Groffen wrote:
>> On 03-10-2009 23:27:41 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>> The amount of pkgs in tree with valid code that fails with asneeded is
>>> close to zero. We can use this,
>>>
>>> if use userland_GNU; then
>>> append-ldflags -Wl,--no-as-needed
>>> fi
>>>
>>
Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 03-10-2009 23:27:41 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> The amount of pkgs in tree with valid code that fails with asneeded is
>> close to zero. We can use this,
>>
>> if use userland_GNU; then
>> append-ldflags -Wl,--no-as-needed
>> fi
>>
>> logic so it won't cause you trou
On 03-10-2009 23:27:41 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> The amount of pkgs in tree with valid code that fails with asneeded is
> close to zero. We can use this,
>
> if use userland_GNU; then
> append-ldflags -Wl,--no-as-needed
> fi
>
> logic so it won't cause you troubles. Or the obvious shorter &
Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 03-10-2009 22:35:58 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 22:13:59 +0300
>>> Samuli Suominen wrote:
Since new binutils will support LD_AS_NEEDED="1" to force ld behave
asneeded we could use this for the developer -targe
On 03-10-2009 22:35:58 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 22:13:59 +0300
> > Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >> Since new binutils will support LD_AS_NEEDED="1" to force ld behave
> >> asneeded we could use this for the developer -target in profiles?
> >>
> >>
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 22:13:59 +0300
> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> Since new binutils will support LD_AS_NEEDED="1" to force ld behave
>> asneeded we could use this for the developer -target in profiles?
>>
>> Speak up if you think it's a terrible idea.
>
> Well, it does brea
On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 22:13:59 +0300
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Since new binutils will support LD_AS_NEEDED="1" to force ld behave
> asneeded we could use this for the developer -target in profiles?
>
> Speak up if you think it's a terrible idea.
Well, it does break correct code, so it's about on p
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> 2009-10-03 21:13:59 Samuli Suominen napisał(a):
>> Since new binutils will support LD_AS_NEEDED="1" to force ld behave
>> asneeded we could use this for the developer -target in profiles?
>
> IMHO it should be set in the base profile so that everybody b
2009-10-03 21:13:59 Samuli Suominen napisał(a):
> Since new binutils will support LD_AS_NEEDED="1" to force ld behave
> asneeded we could use this for the developer -target in profiles?
IMHO it should be set in the base profile so that everybody benefits from this.
--
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar
Dne sobota 03 Říjen 2009 21:13:59 Samuli Suominen napsal(a):
> Since new binutils will support LD_AS_NEEDED="1" to force ld behave
> asneeded we could use this for the developer -target in profiles?
>
> Speak up if you think it's a terrible idea.
>
> Thanks, Samuli
>
Could we enable it everywher
Since new binutils will support LD_AS_NEEDED="1" to force ld behave
asneeded we could use this for the developer -target in profiles?
Speak up if you think it's a terrible idea.
Thanks, Samuli
14 matches
Mail list logo
