From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicholas Piggin Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of most trees Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 00:43:10 +1000 Message-ID: <20170623004310.76b79cbb@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> References: <20170622152441.3704b3d9@canb.auug.org.au> <20170622184116.0ebaabd9@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20170622141310.GF8406@bubble.grove.modra.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-pg0-f67.google.com ([74.125.83.67]:36441 "EHLO mail-pg0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752138AbdFVOnZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jun 2017 10:43:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20170622141310.GF8406@bubble.grove.modra.org> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Alan Modra Cc: Stephen Rothwell , David Miller , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Masahiro Yamada On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 23:43:10 +0930 Alan Modra wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 06:41:16PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > > Is there any way for the linker to place the inputs to avoid unresolvable > > relocations where possible? > > Not without quite a lot of work writing support for that feature. > Okay, just wondering if I'd missed something. It'd probably wouldn't be enough benefit to justify a significant amount of work. We'd be better off looking at link time optimisation if we wanted to go that way. Thanks, Nick