> You wrote:
> > A much better idea is to use ld -r and use .o files isntead of .a
> > files.
> Why do you think this is a much better idea?
>
> I have three objections:
>
> (1) it involves touching a lot of Makefiles
> (2) it may cause the linker to drag in unneeded stuff to the resident image
> (3) it degrades error reporting by losing the name of the original .o file
>
> That's why I prefer --start-group and --end-group.
If I may chip in...
(1) is not too relevant, we should strive for the cleanest source
(including Makefiles) possible. Question is, is this a real cleanup?
BTW, you can arrange for "directory static" (not C's "file static")
symbols this way, if needed. Is this relevant?
Sure, it's a lot of work.
(2) is a killer. But then, why is there unneeded stuff in the *.a's? Sure,
I can think of situations where it does make sense. Are they present
here?
(3) again, a good point.
-- Dr. Horst H. von Brand mailto:vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513- 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/