Some Binaries are statically linked, add comments to the Makefile why this is so. I obtained the comments from cvs, the versions are: devd: 1.5 ar: 1.6 as: 1.13 ld: 1.12 ranlib: 1.6 make: 1.19 nologin: was already commented pccardc and pccardd: 1.7 cc: 1.22 cc1: 1.7 cc1plus. 1.7 gdb: ??? I don't know why gdb is still statically linked. 1.59 is not a real reason, I think. :) Could someone please explain it in the Makefile?
Responsible Changed From-To: freebsd-doc->freebsd-bugs While it could be called doc, this really falls under the "jurisdiction" for the src people, so reassign the PR over them.
On 2005-04-22 19:56, Marius Nuennerich <marius.nuennerich@gmx.net> wrote: > Some Binaries are statically linked, add comments to the Makefile why this is so. > diff -ru src/gnu/usr.bin/binutils/ar/Makefile head/gnu/usr.bin/binutils/ar/Makefile > --- src/gnu/usr.bin/binutils/ar/Makefile Thu Apr 21 16:29:47 2005 > +++ head/gnu/usr.bin/binutils/ar/Makefile Fri Apr 22 18:24:20 2005 > @@ -10,7 +10,10 @@ > CFLAGS+= -I${.CURDIR}/${RELTOP}/libbinutils > CFLAGS+= -I${SRCDIR}/binutils > CFLAGS+= -I${SRCDIR}/bfd > + > +# Critical toolchain binaries are staticly linked > NO_SHARED?= yes Sorry, but this is no explanation of "why". It's merely a redundant comment that states the obvious. A _REAL_ explanation would be something like (entirely fictitious text, used as example only): # The dynamic linker may have to call ar(1), so it must be # statically linked to avoid creating a circular dependency of # ld-elf.so -> ar -> lf-elf.so NO_SHARED?= yes The same is true for all the "Critical toolchain binaries" comments. > --- src/gnu/usr.bin/cc/cc1/Makefile Thu Apr 21 16:29:55 2005 > +++ head/gnu/usr.bin/cc/cc1/Makefile Fri Apr 22 19:24:54 2005 > @@ -8,6 +8,9 @@ > SRCS= main.c c-parse+%DIKED.c c-lang.c stub-objc.c > BINDIR= /usr/libexec > NO_MAN= > + > +# Build cc1 nonshared. This actually results in it consuming 40K *less* disk > +# space and improves compile times by a few percent. > NO_SHARED?=yes If this comment is true, then it looks like a good thing to have :-) > diff -ru src/gnu/usr.bin/cc/cc1plus/Makefile head/gnu/usr.bin/cc/cc1plus/Makefile > --- src/gnu/usr.bin/cc/cc1plus/Makefile Thu Apr 21 16:29:55 2005 > +++ head/gnu/usr.bin/cc/cc1plus/Makefile Fri Apr 22 19:31:54 2005 > @@ -13,6 +13,8 @@ > > BINDIR= /usr/libexec > NO_MAN= > + > +# Makes it smaller and faster > NO_SHARED?=yes s/it/cc1plus/ and this looks fine too :-) > diff -ru src/sbin/devd/Makefile head/sbin/devd/Makefile > --- src/sbin/devd/Makefile Thu Apr 21 16:35:48 2005 > +++ head/sbin/devd/Makefile Fri Apr 22 18:22:22 2005 > @@ -5,6 +5,11 @@ > MAN= devd.8 devd.conf.5 > WARNS?= 1 > > +# Force devd to be statically compiled. This avoids the > +# need for libstdc++ in /lib, and the generated binary is actually smaller > +# statically linked than dynamically + sizeof(libstdc++). Additionally, > +# devd doesn't use get*by*() which is one of the main motivations for > +# dynamically linking the root partition anyway. > NO_SHARED?=YES The wrapping of text in this comment looks like it has been randomly chosen and there are a few glaring syntax errors. > diff -ru src/usr.sbin/pccard/Makefile.inc head/usr.sbin/pccard/Makefile.inc > --- src/usr.sbin/pccard/Makefile.inc Thu Apr 21 16:42:21 2005 > +++ head/usr.sbin/pccard/Makefile.inc Fri Apr 22 18:31:57 2005 > @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@ > # $FreeBSD: src/usr.sbin/pccard/Makefile.inc,v 1.9 2004/12/21 09:59:45 ru Exp $ > > +# Must be compiled static so that it is possible > +# to use them early in the boot process. > NO_SHARED?= YES This is not a complete sentence, which is a violation of style(9). Something like this would probably look better: # The PC-CARD tools may need to be used very early in the boot process. NO_SHARED?= yes One last important comment is that all these changes, despite being in the comments of files, are *not* documentation problems. Any changes made to the Makefiles need to be reviewed by at least one src committer. - Giorgos
State Changed From-To: open->closed Closed by submitter request (OBE).