This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [RFD] New binutil 'objsplit'
- From: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
- To: "Dave Korn" <dk at artimi dot com>
- Cc: <binutils at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:12:33 -0700
- Subject: Re: [RFD] New binutil 'objsplit'
- References: <NUTMEG48NvzHr4sRQde0000055c@NUTMEG.CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
"Dave Korn" <dk@artimi.com> writes:
> Yep, I'm largely in agreement with you that extending the proper linker
> would be the best fix for garbage collecting. But, as you say, I've already
> done it. So perhaps the question should be:
>
> Can anyone think of any *other* reason why someone might want to separate
> out sections into separate files ?
Well, for purposes of building libgcc.a, it would be *so* much simpler
if it could be boiled down to
./xgcc -B./ -ffunction-sections -yada -yada libgcc2.c
ar cr --split-object libgcc.a libgcc2.o
or similar. But this would require us to (a) support
-ffunction-sections on all targets, and (b) require binutils on all
targets, neither of which things will ever happen; or else we would
have to keep all the current goo around, so nothing gets simpler.
So, merely wishful thinking on my part.
zw