On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 16:40:54 +0200 Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 11:49:46AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi Sam, > > > > On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 22:10:45 +0200 Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Did you by any chance evalue the use of INPUT in linker files. > > > Stephen back then (again based on proposal from Alan Modra), > > > also made an implementation using INPUT. > > > > The problem with that idea was that (at least for some versions of > > binutils in use at the time) we hit a static limit to the number of > > object files and ld just stopped at that point. :-( > > The ld bug was caused by opening too many linked definitions files. > We can workaround this by expanding the files. > I gave this a quick spin - see below. > > Note - I have no idea if using thin archived or this method is better. > But it seems just wrong to me that we convert to thin archives when > we really do not need to do so. > > Note - this was a quick spin. It build fine here and thats it. Is there a reason to prefer using linker scripts rather than thin archives? I thought the former was possibly a bit less robust, and the latter a smaller change for scripts and toolchain in terms of "almost behaving like an object file". I don't have a strong preference although do have a couple of (out of tree) scripts that expect objdump to work on built-in.o Thanks, Nick -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
