What's the deal with building intermediate .o vs .a files?

From: Graham Stoney (greyham@research.canon.com.au)
Date: Fri Apr 07 2000 - 02:38:14 EST

Next message: Benjamin Redelings I: "new (non-shmfs) Oops in pre4-4. procfs actually."
Previous message: David Schwartz: "pre4-3: kmem_free: Bad obj (dentry_cache)]"
Next in thread: Andi Kleen: "Re: What's the deal with building intermediate .o vs .a files?"
Maybe reply: Andi Kleen: "Re: What's the deal with building intermediate .o vs .a files?"
Reply: Jeff Garzik: "Re: What's the deal with building intermediate .o vs .a files?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi gang,

I've noticed that a number of subdirectories in the kernel build intermediate
object files using "ld -r", whereas others build archives using "ar c". Can
someone please point me to a rationale for which is the prefered behaviour?

Thanks,
Graham

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Benjamin Redelings I: "new (non-shmfs) Oops in pre4-4. procfs actually."
Previous message: David Schwartz: "pre4-3: kmem_free: Bad obj (dentry_cache)]"
Next in thread: Andi Kleen: "Re: What's the deal with building intermediate .o vs .a files?"
Maybe reply: Andi Kleen: "Re: What's the deal with building intermediate .o vs .a files?"
Reply: Jeff Garzik: "Re: What's the deal with building intermediate .o vs .a files?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 07 2000 - 21:00:18 EST