Bug 301480 – sys-devel/binutils-2.20.51.0.5 changed gold configure options

• Product: Gentoo Linux
• Status: RESOLVED FIXED

[Description Ryan Hill (RETIRED) 2010-01-19 04:09:12 UTC]

in 2.20.51.05 the configure arguments passed to build both gold and ld changed.  instead of "--enable-gold=both --enable-linker=bfd" it now works like

# Handle --enable-gold.
#   --enable-gold       Build only gold, gold is default
#   --disable-gold [default]    Build only GNU ld, GNU ld is default
#   --enable-gold=both      Build both gold and GNU ld, gold is default
#   --enable-gold=both/gold Same
#   --enable-gold=both/bfd  Build both gold and GNU ld, GNU ld is
#               default

the code changed enough that the grep in toolchain-binutils.eclass doesn't match anything now and we end up passing just --enable-gold, meaning we don't build the bfd linker anymore.

btw, is there a reason enabling USE=gold still sets the default linker to bfd?  don't want the bug reports?

[Comment 1 Ryan Hill (RETIRED) 2010-01-19 04:13:21 UTC]

Created attachment 216870 [details, diff]
toolchain-binutils.eclass.diff

[Comment 2 SpanKY 2010-01-19 04:22:24 UTC]

why dont we drop USE=gold and always build bfd/gold by default.  and drop support for older versions that support only one.

[Comment 3 SpanKY 2010-01-28 00:25:33 UTC]

ive committed a change along those lines:
http://sources.gentoo.org/eclass/toolchain-binutils.eclass?r1=1.88&r2=1.89

[Comment 4 Togge 2010-08-17 15:29:28 UTC]

How about reverting this until there is a non hard masked version in the tree that can be used?

[Comment 5 SpanKY 2010-08-17 19:52:07 UTC]

no.  current stable/unstable does not allow parallel installs and gold breaks many packages.  current stable/unstable also has many bugs we arent fixing.

[Comment 6 Togge 2010-08-18 09:57:24 UTC]

Ok, fair enough. Is there any version that is reasonably safe among the 51 series?  

[Comment 7 SpanKY 2010-08-18 16:56:52 UTC]

i havent noticed any problems on x86_64 with binutils-2.20.51.0.9+