This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: forcing the linker to be a particular one (i.e. gold vs bfd)

From: Matthias Klose <doko at ubuntu dot com>
To: Kalle Olavi Niemitalo <kon at iki dot fi>
Cc: Basile Starynkevitch <basile at starynkevitch dot net>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 22:17:42 +0200
Subject: Re: forcing the linker to be a particular one (i.e. gold vs bfd)
References: <20101010200752.e21eb675.basile@starynkevitch.net> <87d3rh7r5c.fsf@Pulska.kon.iki.fi>

On 10.10.2010 22:02, Kalle Olavi Niemitalo wrote:

Basile Starynkevitch<basile@starynkevitch.net> writes:

Of course, one can always force ld to be a particular linker (i.e. the
BFD one on a system where the default is GOLD, or vice versa) with ugly
$PATH and symlink tricks. But that is ugly.


You mentioned you use Debian; their gcc-4.4 4.4.3-4 and later
have a "gold-and-ld" patch to support gcc -fuse-ld=bfd and
-fuse-ld=gold.  This patch is not in the FSF's GCC 4.4.5,
4.5.1, nor trunk.

sorry to say so, but that's a bad story. this is a patch which is in current binutils trunk, submitted for review for gcc trunk, finally got reviewed by Mark Mitchell after some months, but didn't get any feedback from the original submitter. With binutils 2.21 getting close to release, we'll have a mismatch with gcc and binutils. any idea how to make some progress?

Matthias

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]