Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 301480 - sys-devel/binutils-2.20.51.0.5 changed gold configure options
Summary: sys-devel/binutils-2.20.51.0.5 changed gold configure options
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: [OLD] Core system (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: High normal (vote)
Assignee: Gentoo Toolchain Maintainers
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2010-01-19 04:09 UTC by Ryan Hill (RETIRED)
Modified: 2010-08-18 16:56 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments
toolchain-binutils.eclass.diff (toolchain-binutils.eclass.diff,518 bytes, patch)
2010-01-19 04:13 UTC, Ryan Hill (RETIRED)
Details | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Ryan Hill (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 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) gentoo-dev 2010-01-19 04:13:21 UTC
Created attachment 216870 [details, diff]
toolchain-binutils.eclass.diff
Comment 2 SpanKY gentoo-dev 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 gentoo-dev 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 gentoo-dev 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 gentoo-dev 2010-08-18 16:56:52 UTC
i havent noticed any problems on x86_64 with binutils-2.20.51.0.9+