Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2021 15:58:07 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 258820] Multiple ports fail to build with USE_LTO: libffi.a strip: file format not recognized (propose: disable building static library) Message-ID: <bug-258820-7788-mfRraF8Sjs@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-258820-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-258820-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D258820 --- Comment #9 from Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> --- (In reply to Kubilay Kocak from comment #8) Your assumption is correct, when built with -flto the object file is LLVM IR rather than ELF. $ cc -c -flto foo.o $ file foo.o foo.o: LLVM IR bitcode A .a is just an archive of .o files (along with a symbol table), and isn't = part of the strip issue per se. A few points here: - It usually doesn't make a lot of sense to strip .o or .a files. - Stripping LLVM IR also doesn't make a lot of sense IMO. - We could probably have ELF Tool Chain strip detect and ignore bitcode fil= es - make no changes and exit with status 0. - ELF Tool Chain ar can create a .a archive of LLVM IR .o files, but cannot parse the symbol tables in the .o files to create the archive symbol table. - Longer term we will presumably migrate to LLVM's ar, nm, strip etc. (WITH_LLVM_BINUTILS) as it seems unlikely support will be added to ELF Tool Chain tools. Given the above I suggest that in the short term we should just stop trying= to strip libffi.a (and other .a archives in ports), and do nothing else until = we have migrated to LLVM's tools. Having ELF Tool Chain strip ignore bitcode is probably straightforward, but it's not that useful if we don't also address= ar. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-258820-7788-mfRraF8Sjs>