Re: [PATCH 5/5] kbuild: thin archives make default for all archs

[Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:22:14 +0900
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote:

> Hi Nicholas,
> 
> 2017-06-09 14:24 GMT+09:00 Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>:
> > Make thin archives build the default, but keep the config option
> > to allow exemptions if any breakage can't be quickly solved.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/process/changes.rst | 9 ++++-----
> >  arch/Kconfig                      | 2 +-
> >  arch/powerpc/Kconfig              | 8 --------
> >  3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/process/changes.rst b/Documentation/process/changes.rst
> > index e25d63f8c0da..56fd0687bd4a 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/process/changes.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/process/changes.rst
> > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ you probably needn't concern yourself with isdn4k-utils.
> >  ====================== ===============  ========================================
> >  GNU C                  3.2              gcc --version
> >  GNU make               3.81             make --version
> > -binutils               2.12             ld -v
> > +binutils               2.20             ld -v
> >  util-linux             2.10o            fdformat --version
> >  module-init-tools      0.9.10           depmod -V
> >  e2fsprogs              1.41.4           e2fsck -V
> > @@ -75,10 +75,9 @@ You will need GNU make 3.81 or later to build the kernel.
> >  Binutils
> >  --------
> >
> > -Linux on IA-32 has recently switched from using ``as86`` to using ``gas`` for
> > -assembling the 16-bit boot code, removing the need for ``as86`` to compile
> > -your kernel.  This change does, however, mean that you need a recent
> > -release of binutils.
> > +The build system has recently switched to using thin archives (`ar T`) rather
> > +than incremental linking (`ld -r`) for built-in.o intermediate steps. This
> > +requires binutils 2.20 or newer.  
> 
> Sorry for my nit-picking.
> 
> If you see this document some years later,
> "recently" may not be so recent.
> 
> Currently, this part is written like that already,
> but perhaps is it better to reword it a bit?

Good point :)

We could say "The build system has, as of 4.13, switched to using..."

Thanks,
Nick