https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22831
Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |nickc at redhat dot com --- Comment #23 from Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com> --- (In reply to Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton from comment #22) Hi Luke, > $ python evil_linker_torture.py 3000 400 200 500000 Actually this ran OK on my system. Admittedly it is a fairly big machine, and I am sure that you could suggest increased parameters that would bring it to its knees. I was a little bit confused as to why the "-g" flag appears three times in both CFLAGS and LDFLAGS. Is this really necessary ? Anyway, my main question is - have you tried using the gold linker instead of the bfd linker ? (Ie adding "-fuse-ld=gold" to the final command line). The reason being that the bfd linker is very old, and it is not wholly surprising that it does not cope well with modern, very large, binaries. The gold linker on the other hand is new, it has been designed from the ground up with large ELF programs in mind, and it does not have any of the cruft that encumbers the bfd linker. Cheers Nick PS. Waving my "devil's advocate" flag for a moment. It could be argued that not linking these gigantic binaries might actually by a good thing, as they are getting ridiculously large. Such binaries are going to take a huge amount of time (and resources) to link, and if linkers were to refuse to link them, then the programmers might have to rethink their monolithic approach and maybe come up with a more modular design. Which might not be a bad thing at all... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils