On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 18:57:11 +0800 Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Marek, > > On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 12:13 PM Marek Behún <marek.be...@nic.cz> wrote: > > > > Using thin archives instead of incremental linking > > - saves disk space > > - works better with dead code elimination > > - prepares for potential LTO > > The commit message is a little bit confusing. This commit actually > does 2 things: don't do incremental linking (using --whole-archive), > and use thin archive (passing T to ar). I believe they are for > different purposes, so we cannot say "using thin archives instead of > incremental linking". > > - -Wl,--start-group $(patsubst $(obj)/%,%,$(u-boot-spl-main)) \ > > - $(patsubst $(obj)/%,%,$(u-boot-spl-platdata)) -Wl,--end-group \ > > + -Wl,--whole-archive $(patsubst $(obj)/%,%,$(u-boot-spl-main)) > > -Wl,--no-whole-archive \ > > + -Wl,--start-group $(patsubst $(obj)/%,%,$(u-boot-spl-platdata)) > > -Wl,--end-group \ > > u-boot-spl-platdata is still within --start-group, --end-group, is > this intentional? I confess that I did not really study these options, I have made these changes according to old LTO patches for Linux. But you are right that it does not make sense. I have fixed this for the next version of this patch. > Is P required to make everything work? It is not. Removed in next version.
