[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [PATCH] --build-id= none in newer ld versions PowerPC

From: Manoel Rebelo Abranches
Subject: Re: [PATCH] --build-id= none in newer ld versions PowerPC
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:16:19 -0200

The variable TARGET_LDFLAGS. isnt set but MODULE_LDFLAGS is instead.

  if test "x$grub_cv_prog_ld_build_id_none" = xyes; then
     MODULE_LDFLAGS="$MODULE_LDFLAGS -Wl,--build-id=none"

I could change to use TARGET_LDFLAGS if it wont brake other
We were using PPC_BUILD_ID_FLAG because it was intended to be only to
PowerPC at first. I can tell if it is needed for others architectures
and if it wont brake others as well.

On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 13:34 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 19:14 +0200, Vesa Jääskeläinen wrote:
> > No no. I mean just KERNEL_LDFLAGS like comparison to MODULE_LDFLAGS. No
> > elf or nothing like that. Is there any problem if one provides this
> > setting even on x86 if linker recognizes it? (what is being tested
> > here). PPC_BUILD_ID_FLAG just sounds too specific.
> > 
> > Isn't EFI also using ELF? I assume this would be beneficial also there.
> I agree, we should not be be multiplying hacks.  There is already code
> adding -Wl,--build-id=none to TARGET_LDFLAGS.  It's a macro
> grub_PROG_LD_BUILD_ID_NONE in aclocal.m4.  What's wrong with it?  Does
> it fail to add -Wl,--build-id=none on PowerPC or is TARGET_LDFLAGS not
> used to link kernel.elf?
> What are the symptoms caused by not using -Wl,--build-id=none?
Best Regards,

Manoel Abranches <address@hidden>
IBM Linux Technology Center Brazil

reply via email to

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