From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marek Behun <marek.behun@nic.cz>
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2021 22:20:26 +0100
Subject: [RFC PATCH u-boot 01/12] build: use thin archives instead of
 incremental linking
In-Reply-To: <20210305133728.GX1310@bill-the-cat>
References: <20210303041211.26945-1-marek.behun@nic.cz>
 <20210303041211.26945-2-marek.behun@nic.cz>
 <CAEUhbmWGushH4kL6r2uJejfDrLXFoRf764k3ObYOTkKSOeHc3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210304191701.1c8c4052@nic.cz>
 <CAEUhbmUjW9HnBiUaaz8XyGbWuvUKo04dKZZ8ZC-oJMd_q8BChA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210305133728.GX1310@bill-the-cat>
Message-ID: <20210306222026.439ab7e1@nic.cz>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On Fri, 5 Mar 2021 08:37:28 -0500
Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 09:34:42PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
> > Hi Marek,
> > 
> > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 2:17 AM Marek Behun <marek.behun@nic.cz> wrote:  
> > >
> > > On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 18:57:11 +0800
> > > Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >  
> > > > Hi Marek,
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 12:13 PM Marek Beh?n <marek.behun@nic.cz> wrote:  
> > > > >
> > > > > Using thin archives instead of incremental linking
> > > > > - saves disk space
> > > > > - works better with dead code elimination
> > > > > - prepares for potential LTO  
> > > >
> > > > The commit message is a little bit confusing. This commit actually
> > > > does 2 things: don't do incremental linking (using --whole-archive),
> > > > and use thin archive (passing T to ar). I believe they are for
> > > > different purposes, so we cannot say "using thin archives instead of
> > > > incremental linking".  
> > > > > -       -Wl,--start-group $(patsubst $(obj)/%,%,$(u-boot-spl-main)) \
> > > > > -       $(patsubst $(obj)/%,%,$(u-boot-spl-platdata)) -Wl,--end-group \
> > > > > +       -Wl,--whole-archive $(patsubst $(obj)/%,%,$(u-boot-spl-main)) -Wl,--no-whole-archive \
> > > > > +       -Wl,--start-group $(patsubst $(obj)/%,%,$(u-boot-spl-platdata)) -Wl,--end-group \  
> > > >
> > > > u-boot-spl-platdata is still within --start-group, --end-group, is
> > > > this intentional?  
> > >
> > > I confess that I did not really study these options, I have made these
> > > changes according to old LTO patches for Linux. But you are right that
> > > it does not make sense. I have fixed this for the next version of this
> > > patch.
> > >  
> > > > Is P required to make everything work?  
> > >
> > > It is not. Removed in next version.  
> > 
> > I did more investigation on this.
> > 
> > The Linux kernel specially added P to ar, in below commit:
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=9a6cfca4f4130444
> > 
> > So it looks like we should keep P here?
> > 
> > But I don't get the point of switching to thin archives. Based on my
> > experiment, LTO does not rely on thin archives. The Linux kernel did
> > not introduce thin archives for LTO.
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=a5967db9af51a84f  
> 
> So technically it would just be part of dealing with the backlog of
> kbuild-resync to take it in this series I guess.
> 

It seems the P flag is needed for ar, otherwise final linking may fail,
for example for nokia rx51. Since Linux uses this as well I am just
gonna put it there.