Re: [Openembedded-architecture] [meta-browser] Chromium and gold linker

[Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org>]

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 03:16:54PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/10/17 3:07 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:35:26PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 17:09 -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 02:00:35PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> >>>> On 7/10/17 1:47 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 04:36:42PM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> Khem, et al,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I couldn't find below patch being discussed on this mailing
> >>>>>> list before it got 
> >>>>>> merged:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://github.com/OSSystems/meta-browser/commit/62e323848f569c
> >>>>>> 4cdea5567b1917ce006d7705af
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://github.com/OSSystems/meta-browser/commit/55a74501bc65c90c
> >>>>> 86e3236b51ec2dc2fc0145fb
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "ld-is-gold just means that my default linker is gold, however we
> >>>>> build
> >>>>> both linkers, so one should be able to enable gold just for
> >>>>> linking
> >>>>> chromium even if default ld is bfd linker."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I strongly disagree with such interpretation - this would mean
> >>>>> there's NO way 
> >>>>> to disable gold linker completely, e.g. for when external
> >>>>> toolchain doesn't 
> >>>>> support it.
> >>>
> >>> Copying OE architecture list for further discussion of "ld-is-gold"
> >>> meaning.
> >>
> >> The attribution above is a bit confusing so I'm not quite sure who
> >> wrote what.  But it is certainly true that "ld-is-gold" in
> >> DISTRO_FEATURES means, and always has meant, simply that gold is to be
> >> installed as the default linker.  In other words, if you invoke plain
> >> "ld", you will get gold, and if you need the BFD linker - usually
> >> because you are using linker scripts that gold doesn't understand -
> >> then you must invoke ld.bfd.  See
> >> 207a9013670560d62c793a66f01e19f4760a71a8 from some six years ago for
> >> the place that it was originally added.
> >>
> >> As far as I know, we do not have (and never have had) any
> >> DISTRO_FEATURE that will inhibit gold from being installed altogether,
> > 
> > It is not about being installed, but about being supported by the toolchain 
> > in use - think of external toolchains not built by OE-Core... The original 
> > question was whether it's appropriate to force gold linker in recipes, if 
> > ld-is-gold is not set by the distro.
> 
> We do not have a set API for external toolchains, and thats also wy
> external toolchains have to contantly adjust with newer OE release.
> however, in this case external toolchains could provide ld.gold that
> symlinks to bfd linker

That is true, yes. Which also reminds me to submit a report to Linaro about 
this gold linker breakage...


> >> nor can I immediately think of a reason why this would be generally
> >> useful.  Obviously, any DISTRO that wants to do this is welcome to
> >> provide a bbappend for binutils.
> >>
> >> p.
> >>
>