From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753853AbdFSJPu (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jun 2017 05:15:50 -0400 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:54667 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753811AbdFSJPs (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jun 2017 05:15:48 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 11:15:46 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Nicholas Piggin Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] kbuild: switch to thin archives Message-ID: <20170619091546.GA19779@amd> References: <20170602125454.13304-1-npiggin@gmail.com> <20170618100426.GB20211@amd> <20170619174521.277a9402@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170619174521.277a9402@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon 2017-06-19 17:45:21, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 12:04:26 +0200 > Pavel Machek wrote: >=20 > > On Fri 2017-06-02 22:54:54, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > > > Switch from incremental build to thin archives for packaging built-in= =2Eo. > > > binutils version must be bumped to 2.20. Proposed patch for 4.13. > > >=20 > > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin =20 > >=20 > > You should explain any advantage this is supposed to have. >=20 > Hi Pavel, >=20 > You're right, sorry for this, I was spamming the list with a quick > hack to try to get 0day to pick up the patch. >=20 > Most of the discussion has been going on in other patch series (check > linux-kbuild). >=20 > There are 3 main categories of advantages. >=20 > First is reduced size of intermediate artifacts in the build output > tree. >=20 > Second is that incremental linking constrains the linker because it > has to assemble each section in the output as a sequence of those > section from the inputs. So the more incremental linking, the more > you constrain the linker, and this can end up resulting in link fail > with large kernels on some architectures. >=20 > Third is that some link-time optimizations are not compatible or > not very optimal with incremental linking, whereas thin archives > is much more amenable to such things. Thanks for explanation. I checked, and binutils version bumb will not affect me, but... Pavel --=20 (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html --sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAllHlkIACgkQMOfwapXb+vJKfgCfYw2A6U0jJNh4mnk1wZ24eaBU /CMAoI+MM7aWPxay+Vn1y+e9xNt/JULF =w11P -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c--