Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Bug#963057: please detect static libs that contains lto .o files
24 views
Skip to first unread message
Bill Allombert
Jun 18, 2020, 8:50:02 AM6/18/20
to
Package: lintian
Version: 2.80.0
Severity: wishlist
Dear Lintian maintainers,
Could lintian detect static libraries that contain LTO objects files
instead of standard object files ?
There are two cases:
-flto -ffat-lto-objects: the static library works but is larger than needed.
This can be detected with
objdump -x |grep .gnu.lto
-flto -fno-fat-lto-objects: (default for -flto):
the static library will not work at all.
the .o is almost empty.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ball...@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Version: 2.80.0
Severity: wishlist
Dear Lintian maintainers,
Could lintian detect static libraries that contain LTO objects files
instead of standard object files ?
There are two cases:
-flto -ffat-lto-objects: the static library works but is larger than needed.
This can be detected with
objdump -x |grep .gnu.lto
-flto -fno-fat-lto-objects: (default for -flto):
the static library will not work at all.
the .o is almost empty.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ball...@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Felix Lechner
Nov 14, 2021, 9:00:04 AM11/14/21
to
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 5:45 AM Bill Allombert <ball...@debian.org> wrote:
>
> Could lintian detect static libraries that contain LTO objects files
> instead of standard object files ?
We just implemented a tag when the use of LTO renders a static archive
is unusable [1]:
https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/commit/7f4621daf12355d271b943cbd1179829f7e12159
Do we need a separate tag for all uses of LTO, as requested here?
Would a classification tag be appropriate? At a minimum, it would
allow further research into the prevalence. Thanks!
Kind regards,
Felix Lechner
[1] https://bugs.debian.org/977596
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 5:45 AM Bill Allombert <ball...@debian.org> wrote:
>
> Could lintian detect static libraries that contain LTO objects files
> instead of standard object files ?
is unusable [1]:
https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/commit/7f4621daf12355d271b943cbd1179829f7e12159
Do we need a separate tag for all uses of LTO, as requested here?
Would a classification tag be appropriate? At a minimum, it would
allow further research into the prevalence. Thanks!
Kind regards,
Felix Lechner
[1] https://bugs.debian.org/977596
Bill Allombert
Nov 14, 2021, 9:20:03 AM11/14/21
to
On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 05:41:41AM -0800, Felix Lechner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 5:45 AM Bill Allombert <ball...@debian.org> wrote:
> >
> > Could lintian detect static libraries that contain LTO objects files
> > instead of standard object files ?
>
> We just implemented a tag when the use of LTO renders a static archive
> is unusable [1]:
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/commit/7f4621daf12355d271b943cbd1179829f7e12159
>
> Do we need a separate tag for all uses of LTO, as requested here?
>
> Would a classification tag be appropriate? At a minimum, it would
> allow further research into the prevalence. Thanks!
Hello Felix,
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 5:45 AM Bill Allombert <ball...@debian.org> wrote:
> >
> > Could lintian detect static libraries that contain LTO objects files
> > instead of standard object files ?
>
> We just implemented a tag when the use of LTO renders a static archive
> is unusable [1]:
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/commit/7f4621daf12355d271b943cbd1179829f7e12159
>
> Do we need a separate tag for all uses of LTO, as requested here?
>
> Would a classification tag be appropriate? At a minimum, it would
> allow further research into the prevalence. Thanks!
We need separate tags for the two cases, because one is a major bug
(the .a is useless) and the other is a minor bug (the .a is uselessly
large).
Cheers,
Bill
0 new messages