(implicit DSO linking) |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Wasn't this specific behaviour change already introduced in Fedora 13 even for gnu-ld?: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ChangeInImplicitDSOLinking | Wasn't this specific behaviour change already introduced in Fedora 13 even for gnu-ld?: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ChangeInImplicitDSOLinking | ||
---- | |||
From https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/GoldIncompatibilities: ''prelink is incompatible with gold linked binaries. '' | |||
Is this still accurate? Shouldn't this block the feature? | |||
---- | |||
Why is a mass rebuild necessary? Is this just a QA test to make sure everything can rebuild? (In which case it can be done as part of the normal FTBFS tests.) | |||
Revision as of 20:20, 21 September 2010
we should seriously consider making Gold the default linker for everything except glibc and the kernel
Why would glibc and kernel have to be excluded? Are there are known Gold bugs which only affect these two packages? Please provide a reference.
Interestingly, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/GoldIncompatibilities says: It had been reported in the past that the Linux kernel was broken if it was linked with Gold. That bug has been fixed (as of 11/3/2009).
Using gold instead of gnu-ld as the default linker can cause some applications to fail to link if those applications depend on the incorrect behaviour of gnu-ld with respect to symbol resolution in indirect shared libraries.
Wasn't this specific behaviour change already introduced in Fedora 13 even for gnu-ld?: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ChangeInImplicitDSOLinking
From https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/GoldIncompatibilities: prelink is incompatible with gold linked binaries.
Is this still accurate? Shouldn't this block the feature?
Why is a mass rebuild necessary? Is this just a QA test to make sure everything can rebuild? (In which case it can be done as part of the normal FTBFS tests.)