On Mon, 2017-11-27 at 09:46 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> There are several problems with forceful --as-needed:
> 1) forcing it everywhere is a workaround to broken tools that add -l*
> options just in case (like auto*, libtool, pkg-config)
pkg-config isn't broken here. Individual pc files might
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 09:21:16AM +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Tomasz Kłoczko
> wrote:
> > On 13 November 2017 at 10:52, Björn 'besser82' Esser
> > wrote:
>
> > However AFAIK only reason of any issues related to use -Wl,--as-needed
> > is using WRONG list
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Tomasz Kłoczko
wrote:
> On 13 November 2017 at 10:52, Björn 'besser82' Esser
> wrote:
> However AFAIK only reason of any issues related to use -Wl,--as-needed
> is using WRONG list -l parameters (lack of some -l) and this
> needs to be not treated by apply some
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Tue, 2017-11-21 at 18:09 +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> On 21 November 2017 at 16:36, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> [..]
> > > > > > Counting numbers of affected packages by guessing is very bad idea.
> > > > >
> > > > > Call it educated guess if
On 21 November 2017 at 16:36, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
[..]
>> > > > Counting numbers of affected packages by guessing is very bad idea.
>> > >
>> > > Call it educated guess if you want.
>> >
>> > You know, there is a way to get more reliable data: do scratch builds of
>> > all Fedora packages an
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 05:22:32PM +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> On 11/21/2017 04:12 PM, David Tardon wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 01:54:13PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> > > On 21 November 2017 at 10:43, Igor Gnatenko
> > > wrote:
> > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > > > Hash
On 11/21/2017 04:12 PM, David Tardon wrote:
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 01:54:13PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
On 21 November 2017 at 10:43, Igor Gnatenko
wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Tue, 2017-11-21 at 10:26 +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
So is it any final decision
Hello,
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 01:54:13PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> On 21 November 2017 at 10:43, Igor Gnatenko
> wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA256
> >
> > On Tue, 2017-11-21 at 10:26 +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> >> So is it any final decision about start use b
On 21 November 2017 at 10:43, Igor Gnatenko
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On Tue, 2017-11-21 at 10:26 +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
>> So is it any final decision about start use by default --as-needed in
>> linker options?
>
> Can you link Change Proposal you (or s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Tue, 2017-11-21 at 10:26 +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> So is it any final decision about start use by default --as-needed in
> linker options?
Can you link Change Proposal you (or someone else) submitted? I have not heard
anything about that.
>
So is it any final decision about start use by default --as-needed in
linker options?
Looking again on whole discussion across this thread and on
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/pull-request/3 I
don't see any arguments against start use --as-needed by default so
looks like onl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Tue, 2017-11-14 at 07:14 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > On 11/14/2017 12:50 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > >
> > > Then something isn't working correctly, because then libcomps builds
> > > shoul
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 11/14/2017 12:50 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
>>
>> Then something isn't working correctly, because then libcomps builds
>> should be failing in Fedora. It doesn't. It fails in *every other
>> Linux distribution* that I've built it for (Mageia,
On 11/14/2017 12:50 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
Then something isn't working correctly, because then libcomps builds
should be failing in Fedora. It doesn't. It fails in *every other
Linux distribution* that I've built it for (Mageia, openSUSE,
OpenMandriva, Solus, and others...) unless I patch it to d
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:45 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 11/14/2017 01:32 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Florian Weimer
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/14/2017 03:54 AM, Philip Kovacs wrote:
One concern is that -Wl,--as-needed requires greater accuracy wit
On 11/14/2017 01:32 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 11/14/2017 03:54 AM, Philip Kovacs wrote:
One concern is that -Wl,--as-needed requires greater accuracy with the
ordering of objects and
libraries as you link. Also, if a package uses a libra
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 11/14/2017 03:54 AM, Philip Kovacs wrote:
>>
>> One concern is that -Wl,--as-needed requires greater accuracy with the
>> ordering of objects and
>> libraries as you link. Also, if a package uses a library indirectly,
>> i.e. A uses C v
On 11/14/2017 03:54 AM, Philip Kovacs wrote:
One concern is that -Wl,--as-needed requires greater accuracy with the ordering
of objects and
libraries as you link. Also, if a package uses a library indirectly, i.e. A uses C
via B: A -> B -> C,--as-needed will peel away C and break A unless A e
One concern is that -Wl,--as-needed requires greater accuracy with the ordering
of objects and
libraries as you link. Also, if a package uses a library indirectly, i.e. A
uses C via B: A -> B -> C,--as-needed will peel away C and break A unless A
explicitly mentions its need for C. Of course
On 13 November 2017 at 22:01, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
[..]
> In other words -Wl,--as-needed should be used everywhere WITHOUT exceptions.
> Easiest way apply this globally in Fedora is add --as-needed in
> /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld spec file by apply patch:
>
> --- /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/r
On 13 November 2017 at 10:52, Björn 'besser82' Esser
wrote:
[..]
> that specific flag should be in LDFLAGS, but there are reasons, we do
> NOT have it in there, because it will likely break any binaries built
> from or containing FORTRAN sources. They will simply SEGFAULT, because
> `-Wl,--as-nee
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 7:21 AM, Michael Catanzaro
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 5:06 AM, Daniel P. Berrange
> wrote:
>>
>> What % of our distro involves fortran though ? Could this be as simple as
>> enabling it by default, but having an easy way via an RPM macro to opt-out
>> of it in the ha
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 5:06 AM, Daniel P. Berrange
wrote:
What % of our distro involves fortran though ? Could this be as
simple as enabling it by default, but having an easy way via an RPM
macro to opt-out of it in the handleful of packages that matter wrt
fortran.
If Debian/Ubuntu/openSUS
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:52:14AM +0100, Björn 'besser82' Esser wrote:
> Am Montag, den 13.11.2017, 11:02 +0100 schrieb Igor Gnatenko:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm interested why we still don't have this flag in our CFLAGS? It
> > seems that
> > other distributions like openSUSE enable it by default an
Am Montag, den 13.11.2017, 11:02 +0100 schrieb Igor Gnatenko:
> Hello,
>
> I'm interested why we still don't have this flag in our CFLAGS? It
> seems that
> other distributions like openSUSE enable it by default and it helps
> in many
> cases to avoid over-linking (for example, see thread about po
25 matches
Mail list logo
