В Sun, 21 Sep 2014 19:03:08 +0200 Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko <phco...@gmail.com> пишет:
> On 04.08.2014 16:53, Andrey Borzenkov wrote: > > В Mon, 04 Aug 2014 10:45:22 +0400 > > Stanislav Kholmanskikh <stanislav.kholmansk...@oracle.com> пишет: > > > >> Hi! > >> > >> On 08/01/2014 07:40 PM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > >>> On 01.08.2014 17:35, Andrey Borzenkov wrote: > >>>> В Fri, 1 Aug 2014 16:15:56 +0400 > >>>> Stanislav Kholmanskikh <stanislav.kholmansk...@oracle.com> пишет: > >>>> > >>>>> Early versions of binutils doesn't support --no-relax flag, so > >>>>> commit 063f2a04d158ec1b275a925dfbae74b124708cde prevents building > >>>>> with such versions. > >>>>> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Stanislav Kholmanskikh > >>>>> <stanislav.kholmansk...@oracle.com> > >>>>> --- > >>>>> conf/Makefile.common | 8 ++++++++ > >>>>> configure.ac | 10 ++++++++++ > >>>>> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > >>>>> > >>>>> diff --git a/conf/Makefile.common b/conf/Makefile.common > >>>>> index e4c301f..5bda66f 100644 > >>>>> --- a/conf/Makefile.common > >>>>> +++ b/conf/Makefile.common > >>>>> @@ -8,11 +8,19 @@ unexport LC_ALL > >>>>> # Platform specific options > >>>>> if COND_sparc64_ieee1275 > >>>>> CFLAGS_PLATFORM += -mno-app-regs > >>>>> +if COND_LD_SUPPORTS_NO_RELAX > >>>>> LDFLAGS_PLATFORM = -Wl,-melf64_sparc -Wl,--no-relax > >>>>> +else > >>>>> + LDFLAGS_PLATFORM = -Wl,-melf64_sparc -mno-relax > >>>>> +endif > >>>> > >>>> TBO I think commit should simply be reverted. "Uniformity" is rather > >>>> poor excuse for breaking existing systems. > >>>> > >>> This commit is needed for clang to compile for sparc64. Given that > >>> sparc64 clang still doesn't really work I'm ok with reverting, at least > >>> for now. > >> > >> But, it this case, maybe it would be better to consider > >> reviewing/applying this patch? Just to not return to this issue after > >> some time? > >> > >> Andrey, Vladimir, what do you think? > >> > > > > Yes, commit message was pretty confusing. This leaves the question, > > whether combination of clang and binutils that do not support > > -Wl,--no-relax exists though :) Otherwise I agree, we should use this > > patch. > > > I think we could try to push for clang to have -mno-relax. They're > usually pretty responsive and we'll probably need few fixes for few > other clang problems anyway. For now I just reverted it. Did you push it?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
