[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH,HURD] Fix link with gold

From: Samuel Thibault
Subject: Re: [PATCH,HURD] Fix link with gold
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 20:47:14 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21+34 (58baf7c9f32f) (2010-12-30)

Thomas Schwinge, le Wed 04 Apr 2012 22:46:34 +0200, a écrit :
> > > I'm still open to being convinced otherwise.
> > 
> > Well, the thing is: we need to patch a fair number of applications
> > then (Xorg, gdb, ...)
> But that's already mostly it, isn't it?

Possibly. We might just have commit access to most of these already

> > since the dependency used to be brought in
> > automatically (even explicitly, in the case of libc.a), so it looked
> > like it was a libc-provided feature.
> > 
> > > But expressing your actual dependencies is a good thing, and
> > > IMHO it makes sense to have "average" programs just using POSIXy 
> > > interfaces
> > > depend only on -lc and Hurdish programs explicitly depend on what they 
> > > use.
> What is a clean way so that we could remove it from the static libc.a's
> ``GROUP ( libcrt.a libmachuser.a libhurduser.a )''?  libcrt.a does need
> it itself after all.  So I guess in the -static case we'll (have to)
> continue to link it in, unless we'd apply some medium-sized surgery?

I'd say have to continue link it in.

> A patch that I just used to build Hurd in the new setting (the *.static
> case just for uniformity, as just discussed):

That seems reasonable to me.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]