Messages in this thread |  | | From | Russell King <> | Subject | Re: test10-pre7 | Date | Tue, 31 Oct 2000 09:37:09 +0000 (GMT) |
| |
Keith Owens writes: > kbuild 2.5 splits link order into three categories. Those that must > come first, in the order they are specified - LINK_FIRST. Those that > must come last, in the order they are specified - LINK_LAST.
Keith, this sounds like a K-ludge.
Take the instance where we need to link a.o first, z.o second, f.o third and p.o fourth. How does LINK_FIRST / LINK_LAST guarantee this?
LINK_FIRST = a.o z.o LINK_LAST = f.o p.o
But then what guarantees that 'a.o' will be linked before 'z.o'?
A first/last implementation can *not* specify precisely a link order without guaranteeing that the order of the LINK_FIRST *and* the LINK_LAST objects is preserved, which incidentally is the same requirement for the obj-y implementation.
I don't see what this LINK_FIRST / LINK_LAST gains us other than more complexity for zero gain. _____ |_____| ------------------------------------------------- ---+---+- | | Russell King rmk@arm.linux.org.uk --- --- | | | | http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/~rmk/aboutme.html / / | | +-+-+ --- -+- / | THE developer of ARM Linux |+| /|\ / | | | --- | +-+-+ ------------------------------------------------- /\\\ | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |