From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NF27J-0001YC-40 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 04:00:21 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NF27D-0001Xh-Di for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 04:00:19 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=33288 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NF27D-0001Xe-9Q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 04:00:15 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:31257) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NF27D-0002KI-0p for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 04:00:15 -0500 Message-ID: <4B138999.2000606@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:00:09 +0200 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Avoiding --whole-archive References: <616D744F-F31E-4E96-9A23-1664C78313FD@web.de> <64FD5BFF-581C-4202-97EA-48BC96A2211C@web.de> <4A2258D7.5020002@codemonkey.ws> <03B6CD6A-6CD3-4D60-97BE-8CFABA82F835@web.de> <9E275697-0576-4CD3-AEB2-68734B720FA3@web.de> <31D358FF-E8DB-43E2-967A-1A27C17E482A@web.de> In-Reply-To: <31D358FF-E8DB-43E2-967A-1A27C17E482A@web.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= Cc: QEMU Developers , Juan Quintela On 11/29/2009 04:17 PM, Andreas F=C3=A4rber wrote: > > This problem is still around after Juan's Makefile reorganizations. > > Before, I had provided two alternative patches: > > * The first version wrote the list of libqemu_common.a's and=20 > $(HWLIB)'s object files into a text file from Makefile[.hw] that was=20 > later read in Makefile.target. > > * The second version was using dedicated Makefile[.hw] targets for=20 > printing the object files to stdout for use by Makefile.target,=20 > avoiding the need to write an intermediate file. > > Avi had preferred a variation of the first version for reduced=20 > complexity. > > Other ideas that crossed my mind were: > * using GNU ld directly instead of gcc for linking (broken by -Wl and=20 > some other LDFLAGS) Using ld directly may break link-time optimization when that arrives. --=20 Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick = to panic.