Re: [gentoo-dev] LDFLAGS=-Wl,--hash-style=gnu
2008-07-16 18:38:47 Doug Goldstein napisał(a):
> Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > all,
> >
> > I'm at the point that -Wl,-O1 appears to be successful. It's time to
> > toss on -Wl,--hash-style=gnu. The issue is that we need glibc 2.5 or
> > higher and not mips. So one solution is to put the following:
> >
> > default/linux: LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1,--hash-style=gnu"
> > default/linux/mips: LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1"
> >
> > However, this means we'll have to put a has_version check in
> > profile.bashrc of default/linux, which seems a bit cludgy..
> >
> > Any suggestions? Comments?
> Given the benefits vs the annoyances of not all platforms supporting it
> and requiring 2 has_version checks in profile.bashrc.
has_version checks can be called only once per package:
if [[ "${EBUILD_PHASE}" == "setup" ]] ; then
if has_version "
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] LDFLAGS=-Wl,--hash-style=gnu
2008-07-16 18:38:47 Doug Goldstein napisał(a): > Doug Goldstein wrote: > > all, > > > > I'm at the point that -Wl,-O1 appears to be successful. It's time to > > toss on -Wl,--hash-style=gnu. The issue is that we need glibc 2.5 or > > higher and not mips. So one solution is to put the following: > > > > default/linux: LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1,--hash-style=gnu" > > default/linux/mips: LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1" > > > > However, this means we'll have to put a has_version check in > > profile.bashrc of default/linux, which seems a bit cludgy.. > > > > Any suggestions? Comments? > Given the benefits vs the annoyances of not all platforms supporting it There's only one platform not supporting -Wl,--hash-style=gnu and putting LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1" in default/linux/mips/make.defaults doesn't cause any problems. > and requiring 2 has_version checks in profile.bashrc. IMO 1-second has_version checks aren't annoying. -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] LDFLAGS=-Wl,--hash-style=gnu
Doug Goldstein wrote: all, I'm at the point that -Wl,-O1 appears to be successful. It's time to toss on -Wl,--hash-style=gnu. The issue is that we need glibc 2.5 or higher and not mips. So one solution is to put the following: default/linux: LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1,--hash-style=gnu" default/linux/mips: LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1" However, this means we'll have to put a has_version check in profile.bashrc of default/linux, which seems a bit cludgy.. Any suggestions? Comments? Given the benefits vs the annoyances of not all platforms supporting it and requiring 2 has_version checks in profile.bashrc. I'd be in favor of skipping this flag from the defaults. Possibly adding a documentation notice about it but that's it. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] LDFLAGS=-Wl,--hash-style=gnu
Fabian Groffen wrote: I'm just wondering... unless it has changed since last time I installed Gentoo Linux, but isn't the installation manual on purpose conservative with CFLAGS? make.conf.example also does not much more than "-march -O2 -pipe". -O1 to the linker feels conservative to me. Still, do we really need to go any further? Why not make additional pointers to possible values for LDFLAGS like we do for C(XX)FLAGS in the installation manual? CFLAGS != LDFLAGS, so the installation handbook has never covered them. And yes, we are conservative in our documentation with regards to optimization, because that's the smart choice. Ya'll may want to take a look at the compilation optimization guide at [1], specifically the FAQ on LDFLAGS. I may need to reword this section a bit given how the stance on LDFLAGS has shifted. [1] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gcc-optimization.xml#doc_chap3_sect4 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] LDFLAGS=-Wl,--hash-style=gnu
On 15-07-2008 15:32:32 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote: > all, > > I'm at the point that -Wl,-O1 appears to be successful. It's time to > toss on -Wl,--hash-style=gnu. The issue is that we need glibc 2.5 or > higher and not mips. So one solution is to put the following: > > default/linux: LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1,--hash-style=gnu" > default/linux/mips: LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1" > > However, this means we'll have to put a has_version check in > profile.bashrc of default/linux, which seems a bit cludgy.. > > Any suggestions? Comments? I'm just wondering... unless it has changed since last time I installed Gentoo Linux, but isn't the installation manual on purpose conservative with CFLAGS? make.conf.example also does not much more than "-march -O2 -pipe". -O1 to the linker feels conservative to me. Still, do we really need to go any further? Why not make additional pointers to possible values for LDFLAGS like we do for C(XX)FLAGS in the installation manual? -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] LDFLAGS=-Wl,--hash-style=gnu
all, I'm at the point that -Wl,-O1 appears to be successful. It's time to toss on -Wl,--hash-style=gnu. The issue is that we need glibc 2.5 or higher and not mips. So one solution is to put the following: default/linux: LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1,--hash-style=gnu" default/linux/mips: LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1" However, this means we'll have to put a has_version check in profile.bashrc of default/linux, which seems a bit cludgy.. Any suggestions? Comments? -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
