Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] package/go/go-src: stop forcing binutils-gold dependency on aarch64

[yann.morin@orange.com]

Fiona, All,

On 2025-02-04 11:52 +0100, Fiona Klute spake thusly:
> Am 04.02.25 um 07:26 schrieb yann.morin@orange.com:
> > > Go forces the GOLD linker when dynamically linking Go code, because
> > > old versions of BFD caused errors. The issue has been fixed in
> > > Binutils since at least 2.41 according to the upstream description of
> > > the patch added with this commit [1], and now forcing GOLD causes
> > > linking failure if ld.gold is not available. The associated Golang
> > > issue [2] is still open.
> > I have send a patch back a while ago, that allowed to at least work
> > around the issue for affected packages:
> > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/patch/876f3a7bb6a2375193fc8f06ab856d2449f83727.1699547993.git.yann.morin@orange.com/
[--SNIP--]
> One question though: Is there an existing way to check the Binutils
> version of an external toolchain? For people with Binutils < 2.41 with
> ld.gold forcing BFD might actually break things, so ideally I'd want to
> make the flag conditional on Binutils >= 2.41 (all Buildroot-built
> toolchains meet that anyway). Or would it be acceptable to simply say
> that people with old external toolchains are on their own?

As noted in my filebeat package patch [0], the ld.bfd issue is
supposedly fixed since binutils 2.36, AFAIUI.

There, I took the approach that the workaround would not be conditional
on the binutils version. First, because there is no way in Buildroot to
get that information, especially for external toolchains. Second,
because using ld.bfd should always work, using ld.gold only being an
optimnisation at build time.

I also considered that toolchains too old to even have ld.bfd would just
be ignored anyway. ld.bfd was introduced with ld.gold, which was "quite
a long time ago" (at least 2011 I believe), so we can assume any rdecent
toolchain would be recent enough to have it.

So, packages that need to specify "-fuse-ld=bfd" would do so
unconditionaly, just maybe for the AArch64 case, which is the only one I
know can cause the build failure (not all packages have the issue, as
can be explamplified by the fact that we have no such failures in the
autobuilders).

[0] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/patch/46f20e86fa6c17ada33ede672ffe4229d8bf26a3.1699547993.git.yann.morin@orange.com/

Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.

-- 
                                        ____________
.-----------------.--------------------:       _    :------------------.
|  Yann E. MORIN  | Real-Time Embedded |    __/ )   | /"\ ASCII RIBBON |
|                 | Software  Designer |  _/ - /'   | \ / CAMPAIGN     |
| +33 638.411.245 '--------------------: (_    `--, |  X  AGAINST      |
| yann.morin (at) orange.com           |_="    ,--' | / \ HTML MAIL    |
'--------------------------------------:______/_____:------------------'

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot