On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 01:05:00PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 12:12:15PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > > > rm vmlinux*; time make vmlinux
> > > >
> > > > Vanilla tree: ~7,7 sec
> > > > With single shot ld (Roland's patch): 8,3 secs
> > >
> > > Shouldn't you compar
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 12:12:15PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > > rm vmlinux*; time make vmlinux
> > >
> > > Vanilla tree: ~7,7 sec
> > > With single shot ld (Roland's patch): 8,3 secs
> >
> > Shouldn't you compare:
> > rm vmlinux*; find . -name built-in.o -print | xargs rm
> > time
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 12:12:15PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > rm vmlinux*; time make vmlinux
> >
> > Vanilla tree: ~7,7 sec
> > With single shot ld (Roland's patch): 8,3 secs
>
> Shouldn't you compare:
> rm vmlinux*; find . -name built-in.o -print | xargs rm
> time make vmlinux
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 07:56:48PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 08:00:48PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 12:49:36PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 06:55:59PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 10:14:35AM +0200, S
> rm vmlinux*; time make vmlinux
>
> Vanilla tree: ~7,7 sec
> With single shot ld (Roland's patch): 8,3 secs
Shouldn't you compare:
rm vmlinux*; find . -name built-in.o -print | xargs rm
time make vmlinux
or something like that?
Thanks,
Roland
-
To unsubscribe from this list: se
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 08:00:48PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 12:49:36PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 06:55:59PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 10:14:35AM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > > > But I would still like to hear from Al
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 12:49:36PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 06:55:59PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 10:14:35AM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > > But I would still like to hear from Alan what the benefits are.
> >
> > See http://sourceware.org/ml/binuti
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 06:55:59PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 10:14:35AM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > But I would still like to hear from Alan what the benefits are.
>
> See http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2004-10/msg00178.html
What does _not_ doing intermediates do to
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 10:14:35AM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> But I would still like to hear from Alan what the benefits are.
See http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2004-10/msg00178.html
--
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lin
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 01:18:14AM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > > -cmd_link_multi-m = $(LD) $(ld_flags) $(LDFLAGS_MODULE) -o $@
> > > $(link_multi_deps)
> > > +cmd_link_multi-m = $(cmd_link_multi-y)
> > This signel change looks wrong. We do not want to generate a linker
> > script for modules.
> > -cmd_link_multi-m = $(LD) $(ld_flags) $(LDFLAGS_MODULE) -o $@
> > $(link_multi_deps)
> > +cmd_link_multi-m = $(cmd_link_multi-y)
> This signel change looks wrong. We do not want to generate a linker
> script for modules.
multi-m has nothing to do with modules, really. It's just for another
"
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 12:26:13AM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > Should be doable without to much pain.
> > Alan can you please share with us exactly why this is better and what we may
> > run into of problems doing so.
> > A sample script would be nice too
>
> This about does it. Polish l
> Should be doable without to much pain.
> Alan can you please share with us exactly why this is better and what we may
> run into of problems doing so.
> A sample script would be nice too
This about does it. Polish left as an exercise to the reader.
ld does "interesting" things if the linker
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 04:13:21PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Roland McGrath writes:
>
> > It turns out the problem here is that some .o files wind up with their own
> > .note.gnu.build-id sections. I got the makefile magic wrong, thinking that
> > LDFLAGS_MODULE was a variable specifically f
On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 11:01:55PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> It turns out the problem here is that some .o files wind up with their own
> .note.gnu.build-id sections. I got the makefile magic wrong, thinking that
> LDFLAGS_MODULE was a variable specifically for .ko links.
Reading Documentati
Roland McGrath writes:
> It turns out the problem here is that some .o files wind up with their own
> .note.gnu.build-id sections. I got the makefile magic wrong, thinking that
> LDFLAGS_MODULE was a variable specifically for .ko links. It's also used
> in cmd_link_multi-m.
Alan Modra (binutils
It turns out the problem here is that some .o files wind up with their own
.note.gnu.build-id sections. I got the makefile magic wrong, thinking that
LDFLAGS_MODULE was a variable specifically for .ko links. It's also used
in cmd_link_multi-m. So the problem David and Adrian saw is not actually
From: Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 01:59:40 -0700 (PDT)
> Maybe:
>
> --- a/arch/sparc64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
> +++ b/arch/sparc64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ SECTIONS
> SCHED_TEXT
> LOCK_TEXT
> KPROBES_TEXT
> +NOTES
> *(.gnu.warnin
> (This is in reference to commit 18991197b4b588255ccabf472ebc84db7b66a19c)
>
> When actually used, the build-id linker option causes problems for the
> sparc64 kernel in two ways:
>
> 1) When building modules we get tons of warnings from the linker
>such as:
>
> LD [M] drivers/scsi/sr_mo
(This is in reference to commit 18991197b4b588255ccabf472ebc84db7b66a19c)
When actually used, the build-id linker option causes problems for the
sparc64 kernel in two ways:
1) When building modules we get tons of warnings from the linker
such as:
LD [M] drivers/scsi/sr_mod.o
ld: warning:
20 matches
Mail list logo
