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>