From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1L7a4l-000325-3r for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:34:23 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L7a4j-00031f-7M for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:34:21 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L7a4h-00031M-SV for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:34:19 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=37446 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L7a4h-00031J-Md for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:34:19 -0500 Received: from c60.cesmail.net ([216.154.195.49]:31388) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1L7a4h-0003lJ-BB for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:34:19 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO smtprelay2.cesmail.net) ([192.168.1.112]) by c60.cesmail.net with ESMTP; 02 Dec 2008 13:34:19 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.21] (static-72-92-88-10.phlapa.fios.verizon.net [72.92.88.10]) by smtprelay2.cesmail.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 21BF334C6D for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:40:32 -0500 (EST) From: Pavel Roskin To: The development of GRUB 2 In-Reply-To: <49356D02.4060201@nic.fi> References: <1228150293.7686.9.camel@manoel-laptop> <49341876.6070003@nic.fi> <1228152895.7686.18.camel@manoel-laptop> <49356D02.4060201@nic.fi> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:34:17 -0500 Message-Id: <1228242857.32248.16.camel@dv> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 (2.22.3.1-1.fc9) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. Subject: Re: [PATCH] --build-id= none in newer ld versions PowerPC X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:34:21 -0000 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? -- Regards, Pavel Roskin