[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
actually.
> > 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.
Samuel