From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-x242.google.com (mail-pf0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3s72hl2dF9zDqJ5 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 13:19:51 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-pf0-x242.google.com with SMTP id g202so24200754pfb.1 for ; Sun, 07 Aug 2016 20:19:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 13:19:41 +1000 From: Nicholas Piggin To: Sam Ravnborg Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Arnd Bergmann , Nicolas Pitre , Segher Boessenkool , Alan Modra Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] kbuild: allow architectures to use thin archives instead of ld -r Message-ID: <20160808131941.27541a33@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20160807144054.GA14682@ravnborg.org> References: <1470399123-8455-1-git-send-email-npiggin@gmail.com> <1470399123-8455-2-git-send-email-npiggin@gmail.com> <20160806201045.GA25821@ravnborg.org> <20160807114946.41b682f3@canb.auug.org.au> <20160807144054.GA14682@ravnborg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 16:40:54 +0200 Sam Ravnborg wrote: > On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 11:49:46AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi Sam, > > > > On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 22:10:45 +0200 Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > > > > > Did you by any chance evalue the use of INPUT in linker files. > > > Stephen back then (again based on proposal from Alan Modra), > > > also made an implementation using INPUT. > > > > The problem with that idea was that (at least for some versions of > > binutils in use at the time) we hit a static limit to the number of > > object files and ld just stopped at that point. :-( > > The ld bug was caused by opening too many linked definitions files. > We can workaround this by expanding the files. > I gave this a quick spin - see below. > > Note - I have no idea if using thin archived or this method is better. > But it seems just wrong to me that we convert to thin archives when > we really do not need to do so. > > Note - this was a quick spin. It build fine here and thats it. Is there a reason to prefer using linker scripts rather than thin archives? I thought the former was possibly a bit less robust, and the latter a smaller change for scripts and toolchain in terms of "almost behaving like an object file". I don't have a strong preference although do have a couple of (out of tree) scripts that expect objdump to work on built-in.o Thanks, Nick