On 25 September 2018 at 02:55, <soralx_at_cydem.org> wrote: > >> The normal procedure shouldn't need any LD= overrides; is there >> something unique in your build? Any src.conf settings? > > Indeed, I had "WITHOUT_LLD_BOOTSTRAP=yes" in src.conf. Not sure how > that line made it into this file on a number of my systems... perhaps > an artifact of old -CURRENT upgrade procedure that I've forgotten about. Glad to hear it's resolved now. > I was just following a note 20180510 from UPDATING. It worked before. > And there are no newer entries overruling the old note, so I thought > it should still work as before... Ah, indeed. In addition to that note now being obsolete (and no superseding note) there's another issue: the LD= suggestion applied only to buildkernel (but perhaps was not sufficiently clear). > Strange that overriding LD works when pointing to ld from binutils, but > not always with ld.lld linker; for example, 'stand/i386/mbr/' ignores > "LD=ld.lld", but not "LD=/usr/local/bin/ld". This is a side effect of the linker feature detection. What's happening here is that when lld is detected the build adds the -no-rosegment flag, so when LD=ld.lld is in use the flag is added, then the linker invoked from the compiler driver doesn't handle the flag. When LD=/usr/local/bin/ld the flag is not added at all. I will see about an update for UPDATING.Received on Tue Sep 25 2018 - 11:03:14 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:18 UTC