From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Subject: Re: Two linkers - EFI one (mingw64) and normal GNU one [Fedora] Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 09:26:16 -0500 Message-ID: <20160215142616.GE3698@char.us.oracle.com> References: <20160212171908.GA10110@char.us.oracle.com> <56C1A94D02000078000D1F96@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1aVK6p-0000a5-Ft for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:26:39 +0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56C1A94D02000078000D1F96@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich , Doug Goldstein Cc: wei.liu2@citrix.com, ian.campbell@citrix.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, m.a.young@durham.ac.uk, xen-devel , ian.jackson@citrix.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 02:32:45AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 12.02.16 at 18:19, wrote: > > Fedora for the longest time seems to have two linkers - one normal for GNU > > applications and then another - mingw64 - for building EFI applications. > > > > Which means that to compile ELF binaries on Fedora requires this patch > > (taken from Fedora build): > > This seems completely backwards: Just like we (SUSE) did, they > should really configure their binutils package with > --enable-targets=-pep. I absolutely cannot see why a > MingW64 linker should be used to generate EFI binaries. Yes, > both use the same binary container format, but beyond that > there's nothing common here: EFI binaries are of no use in a > MingW64 environment (afaict at least), but are nowadays an > integral part of an OS installation (i.e. a Linux distro in this case). It has been like this for the last couple of releases. MA Young has been CC-ed on this thread so hopefully he has some idea of why it was choosen this way. > > If it can be proven that Fedora folks are absolutely unwilling to > do so, I could see something like what you propose as a > workaround (albeit it's more like a hack), so a few comments on > the patch itself: > > > --- a/xen/Makefile > > +++ b/xen/Makefile > > @@ -20,6 +20,8 @@ export XEN_ROOT := $(BASEDIR)/.. > > MAKEFLAGS += -rR > > > > EFI_MOUNTPOINT ?= $(BOOT_DIR)/efi > > +EFI_VENDOR=fedora > > This is a no-go. The variable specifically should only be set from > outside our build environment. Right. > > > +LD_EFI ?= $(LD) > > Why couldn't you just probe the binary location(s) you know about > here? But in any case this would perhaps need better integration > with the checking done in xen/arch/x86/efi/Makefile. I can certainly do that. Doug, does Gentoo have it in some other locations? > > Jan >