Re: "build-id" changes break sparc64

On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 06:55:59PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 10:14:35AM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > But I would still like to hear from Alan what the benefits are.
> 
> See http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2004-10/msg00178.html

What does _not_ doing intermediates do to memory footprint of ld(1)
and time spent in there?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: "build-id" changes break sparc64
    • From: Sam Ravnborg <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: "build-id" changes break sparc64
    • From: Sam Ravnborg <[email protected]>
  • Re: "build-id" changes break sparc64
    • From: Roland McGrath <[email protected]>
  • Re: "build-id" changes break sparc64
    • From: Sam Ravnborg <[email protected]>
  • Re: "build-id" changes break sparc64
    • From: Alan Modra <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Determine version of kernel that produced vmcore
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] usb/atm: fix Kconfig garbage
• Previous by thread: Re: "build-id" changes break sparc64
• Next by thread: Re: "build-id" changes break sparc64
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]