Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:31:05 +0100
From:      Chris Rees <crees@FreeBSD.org>
To:        toolchain@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: [RFC] Un-staticise the toolchain
Message-ID:  <CADLo839C-4dFYYvYzPWZr67tj4GionRfkahxwT5aEM6HcJpntQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADLo83_ytaU7tWW5HSdqMxqD5D5SJYkCsht%2B_qW=sePEBtDNtQ@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <20120426093548.GR2358@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <CADLo83_ytaU7tWW5HSdqMxqD5D5SJYkCsht%2B_qW=sePEBtDNtQ@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Oops, just replied privately before:
On Apr 26, 2012 12:39 PM, "Chris Rees" <utisoft@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Apr 26, 2012 10:36 AM, "Konstantin Belousov" <kostikbel@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I think it is time to stop building the toolchain static. I was told that
> > original reasoning for static linking was the fear of loosing the ability
> > to recompile if some problem appears with rtld and any required dynamic
> > library. Apparently, current dependencies are much more spread, e.g.
> /bin/sh
> > is dynamically linked, and statically linked make does not solve
> anything.
> >
> > Patch below makes the dynamically linked toolchain a default, adding an
> > WITHOUT_SHARED_TOOLCHAIN build-time option for real conservators.
>
> Nice idea, but sh etc al are built statically as /rescue/sh.  Will we see
> /rescue/ar  etc?
>
> Chris
>



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo839C-4dFYYvYzPWZr67tj4GionRfkahxwT5aEM6HcJpntQ>