[lfs-dev] gold

Ken Moffat zarniwhoop at ntlworld.com
Tue Feb 7 19:35:43 PST 2017

On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 07:28:24PM -0600, DJ Lucas wrote:
> On 02/04/2017 10:58 AM, Ken Moffat wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 04, 2017 at 12:07:55AM -0600, DJ Lucas wrote:
> > > 
> > > Interesting, I had just suggested to Bruce (the other day on IRC) that we go ahead and do it. I've seen absolutely no failures with bfd as the default linker with both big DEs installed. I haven't gotten around to newer QT yet. I was hoping we'd see a 2.28 release well before now. Does QT pick up gold by default?
> > > 
> > It seems not - I have both ld.gold, ld.bfd and ldd (bfd) in /usr/bin,
> > with a /usr/bin/gold directory containing an ld symlink.  I normally
> > put that first on the PATH, but using a normal PATH it used ld.bfd.
> > 
> I'm still of the mind to provide everything that the package can provide
> with two caveats. 1. We aren't increasing dependencies drastically. 2. No
> harm comes from the change. This even at the expense of a couple of SBU --
> 0.1 for bison in Ch5 and ~3 for the gold test suite IIRC -- and regardless
> of any perceived benefit. I might be in the minority here, so opinions are
> welcome (not sure if Ken's are fully expressed above).
> On the flip, nothing prevents us from burring the two additional switches in
> the wiki if there are strong feelings the other way.
> As to usability, in the default configuration, you can use -fuse-gold to
> CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS if you want to use it explicitly, but otherwise, as far as I
> have been able to tell, it is ignored unless the package maintainer
> explicitly checks for it (and presumably, the maintainer knows whether their
> dependent libraries are correct or if they still depend on bfd's DL-like
> workarounds).
> With 2.27, however, the test suite is, um...messy, with a completely
> different testing framework. 2.28 will hopefully be out the door before
> package freeze, but I'd like to wait and see what things look like at its
> release.

I initially delayed responding because I was hoping to run some
tests - got as far as running a 4.10-rc7 kernel on my Kaveri with a
couple of 'Compute Unit' patches which were on lkml and probably
heading for 4.11 - mixed results (kernel compile with -j4
considerably less-slow, but rerunning pass 1 of binutils needs more
tests : from time to time, that takes a *lot* longer on a
fully-complete system, this may have been one of htose time).  But
I'm about to step into a maze of perl modules (latest versions of all
the things used by the testsuites of the modules needed by biber) and
I'm not sure if I'll have time.  Plus other local requirements.

So - now that I have calmed down, no objections to putting gold into
the book, particularly if somewhere we explain how to force it (I
had not bothered to google deeply enough to find -fuse-gold).

You mention the wiki - isn't that only for BLFS ?  Documenting this
might be most useful for BLFS users, but the logical place to do
that is surely in LFS.

ĸen, hoping that 2.28 arrives in time for 8.0 and is less messy in
its test results - but because I hide most static libs so that I know
what uses them, I suspect it will take me ages to get a good version
of my scripts.
`I shall take my mountains', said Lu-Tze. `The climate will be good
for them.'     -- Small Gods

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list