> On Apr 17, 2020, at 6:28 AM, Rin Okuyama <rokuyama...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2020/04/17 22:14, Jason Thorpe wrote: >>> On Apr 17, 2020, at 12:24 AM, Robert Elz <k...@munnari.oz.au> wrote: >>> >>> For this, RCS and RCS semantics are irrelevant aren't they? >> No, not really. With the modern systems, the "commit ID" identifies the >> state of the entire collection of files, not individual ones. Thus, you >> only need exactly one instance of the ID, not one ID per file. > > Exactly, but at the same time I think that RCSID is still useful till > we switch to a sane VCS with unique commit ID's. > > The attached patch adds SHF_MERGE|SHF_STRINGS flags as Joerg suggested. > I've confirmed that it works fine both for GCC/binutils and LLVM (for > kernel and userland). > > OK to commit, or objections?
I'm fine with this change as a workaround for the current issue with the RCS-style IDs, but it will still be a huge mistake to embed a "commit ID" into every file when we (eventually, hopefully) switch to a modern revision control system because it would obviously require every file with such an embedded to change on each commit, which seems like a really really bad idea. > > Thanks, > rin > <cdefs_elf.patch> -- thorpej
