On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 10:18:53AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org> writes:
> > Not knowing much about v850, I wonder why you do not need to set the -m
> > option. Most other architectures do this.
>
> ???
>
> A far as I can see, no architecture does anything different than the
> default.
A little grepping gave the following result:
i386/Makefile:LDFLAGS := -m elf_i386
m68k/Makefile:LDFLAGS := -m m68kelf
mips/Makefile:LDFLAGS := -G 0
ppc64/Makefile:LDFLAGS := -m elf64ppc
s390/Makefile:LDFLAGS := -m elf_s390
s390x/Makefile:LDFLAGS := -m elf64_s390
sh/Makefile:LDFLAGS := -EL
sh/Makefile:LDFLAGS := -EB
sparc/Makefile:LDFLAGS := -m elf32_sparc
sparc64/Makefile:LDFLAGS := -m elf64_sparc
x86_64/Makefile:LDFLAGS := -m elf_x86_64
Little less than half of the architectures defines their own LDFLAGS.
Most of them set an emulation, most probarly inherited from i386.
>
> [Why on earth would -m be needed, anyway?]
I do not know, but as can be seen above several architectures use it.
I have seen your proposed patch for gnu.linkonce.
I do prefer to have it in arch/v850/Makefile because this is a workaround
for an architecture specific bug in ld.
Why not provide your own link script?
Sam
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 22:00:29 EST