Re: MI linker script

[Masao Uebayashi <uebayasi%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Christos Zoulas <christos%astron.com@localhost> wrote:
> In article <CADbF7ecOaQbeuqjq5hQ2UBPnkP4YFTFRe_tmakvtrdh_0HPYNQ%mail.gmail.com@localhost>,
> Masao Uebayashi  <uebayasi%gmail.com@localhost> wrote:
>>On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Christos Zoulas <christos%astron.com@localhost> wrote:
>>> depending on ld -r to work properly
>>
>>I know none of you trust me, but you don't trust ld -r?
>>
>>It is not me but others (mainly dsl@) who repeatedly brought up
>>usefulness of ld -r.  I didn't know how to use it, whether it can
>>handle ldscript.
>>
>>After one week, I can't believe life without it.
>>
>>ld -r is your friend. :)))
>
> I am not sold :-) Why should I add more steps to linking? What does it buy me?

That way I can have more control by indirection.

> I can understand using -r when building shared libraries, kernel
> modules and other things that don't need final linking, but the kernel
> itself eventually needs to be linked completely so why do it in steps?
> If nothing else, it will be at least twice as slow.

One idea is to make a linker script compiler, to generate one by
mixing MI + MD ones.

Speaking of slowness and/or space, how many kernels do you build for
evbarm, what part of objects are same and/or different?  Will you do
that waste of energy forever?