On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 11:03:17AM +0100, Bob Bishop wrote:
> Yes. You to have a statically linked /rescue/sh on board, so what's the
> point of /bin/sh being dynamic?
While you and I agree on this, the primary reason we went with a
dynamically linked root was for PAM and NSS support -- which are
On Apr 28, 2012, at 3:03 AM, Bob Bishop wrote:
>
> On 28 Apr 2012, at 04:12, David O'Brien wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:38:03PM +0100, Bob Bishop wrote:
Apparently, current dependencies are much more spread, e.g. /bin/sh
is dynamically linked [etc]
>>>
>>> That seems like a b
Hi,
On 28 Apr 2012, at 04:12, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:38:03PM +0100, Bob Bishop wrote:
>>> Apparently, current dependencies are much more spread, e.g. /bin/sh
>>> is dynamically linked [etc]
>>
>> That seems like a bad mistake, because it would prevent even booting
>> s
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 07:52:01AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> You could use /rescue/sh as your single-user shell. Of course, that would
> perhaps let you still be able to recompile things if you had a static
> toolchain. :)
Having the toolchain static has saved me in exactly this way.
--
-
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:38:03PM +0100, Bob Bishop wrote:
> > Apparently, current dependencies are much more spread, e.g. /bin/sh
> > is dynamically linked [etc]
>
> That seems like a bad mistake, because it would prevent even booting
> single-user if rtld/libraries are broken.
When one enters
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 02:58:06PM +0400, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> Regarding your patch...
>
> By placing SHARED_TOOLCHAIN to __DEFAULT_NO_OPTIONS list in
> bsd.own.mk, you already had MK_SHARED_TOOLCHAIN set to "no" by
> default, which preserves the current status quo of building
> toolchain stati
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:58:59AM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 05:41:40PM +0400, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:35:48PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
[...]
> > > Patch below makes the dynamically linked toolchain a default, adding an
> > > W
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 05:41:40PM +0400, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:35:48PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > I think it is time to stop building the toolchain static. I was told that
> > original reasoning for static linking was the fear of loosing the ability
> > to r
On Apr 26, 2012 2:42 PM, "Ruslan Ermilov" wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:35:48PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > I think it is time to stop building the toolchain static. I was told
that
> > original reasoning for static linking was the fear of loosing the
ability
> > to recompile if
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:35:48PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> I think it is time to stop building the toolchain static. I was told that
> original reasoning for static linking was the fear of loosing the ability
> to recompile if some problem appears with rtld and any required dynamic
> li
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 07:52:01AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Thursday, April 26, 2012 7:38:03 am Bob Bishop wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
...
>
> You could use /rescue/sh as your single-user shell. Of course, that would
> perhaps let you still be able to recompile things if you had a static
> toolc
Oops, just replied privately before:
On Apr 26, 2012 12:39 PM, "Chris Rees" wrote:
>
> On Apr 26, 2012 10:36 AM, "Konstantin Belousov"
> wrote:
> >
> > I think it is time to stop building the toolchain static. I was told that
> > original reasoning for static linking was the fear of loosing the
On 2012-04-26 13:53, David Chisnall wrote:
...
> I did some benchmarks a little while ago, and there was, I think, about a 5%
> slowdown on buildworld with a dynamically linked clang vs a statically linked
> one on x86-64. Ideally, I'd want the bootstrap compiler to be statically
> linked but t
On Thursday, April 26, 2012 7:38:03 am Bob Bishop wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 26 Apr 2012, at 10:35, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>
> > I think it is time to stop building the toolchain static. I was told that
> > original reasoning for static linking was the fear of loosing the ability
> > to recompile if
Den 26/04/2012 kl. 11.35 skrev Konstantin Belousov:
> I think it is time to stop building the toolchain static. I was told that
> original reasoning for static linking was the fear of loosing the ability
> to recompile if some problem appears with rtld and any required dynamic
> library. Apparentl
On 26 Apr 2012, at 12:38, Bob Bishop wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 26 Apr 2012, at 10:35, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>
>> I think it is time to stop building the toolchain static. I was told that
>> original reasoning for static linking was the fear of loosing the ability
>> to recompile if some problem a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On 26 Apr 2012, at 10:35, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> I think it is time to stop building the toolchain static. I was told that
> original reasoning for static linking was the fear of loosing the ability
> to recompile if some problem appears wi
I think it is time to stop building the toolchain static. I was told that
original reasoning for static linking was the fear of loosing the ability
to recompile if some problem appears with rtld and any required dynamic
library. Apparently, current dependencies are much more spread, e.g. /bin/sh
is
18 matches
Mail list logo
