From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22465 invoked by alias); 10 May 2011 08:55:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 22428 invoked by uid 22791); 10 May 2011 08:55:24 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RFC_ABUSE_POST X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ww0-f43.google.com (HELO mail-ww0-f43.google.com) (74.125.82.43) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 May 2011 08:55:08 +0000 Received: by wwb17 with SMTP id 17so5442226wwb.12 for ; Tue, 10 May 2011 01:55:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.98.9 with SMTP id o9mr3858415wbn.25.1305017706666; Tue, 10 May 2011 01:55:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.20.74 with HTTP; Tue, 10 May 2011 01:55:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20110404181738.52D661909EB@elbrus2.mtv.corp.google.com> <4D9A4BA3.6000607@ubuntu.com> <4DC81276.8040201@gnu.org> Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 11:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [patch] make default linker --hash-style configurable option From: Richard Guenther To: Paul Pluzhnikov Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" , Paolo Bonzini , Matthias Klose , gcc-patches@sourceware.org, satorux@google.com, iant@google.com, aoliva@redhat.com, dj@redhat.com, neroden@gcc.gnu.org, Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-05/txt/msg00719.txt.bz2 On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Paul Pluzhnikov wr= ote: > On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Joseph S. Myers = wrote: >> On Mon, 9 May 2011, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> >>> Uhm, so we deadlocked, I thought the other way. =A0I cannot really >>> express any opinion about the desirability of the feature, but the >>> configure syntax is certainly okay with me, and I gather from the >>> thread that you are fine with that as well. >> >> Given the build system changes, the gcc.c changes are OK. > > Ok for trunk then? > > I'll wait till tomorrow in case someone has additional comments on the > desirability part. I wonder why this is a GCC specific patch and not a linker patch. Why not change the linker(s) to accept such configure option that changes its default behavior? Otherwise if people link with ld they suddenly get different hash-style. That looks wrong to me. Richard. > Thanks! > -- > Paul Pluzhnikov >