-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 459
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Prefer -ar
to -gcc-ar
#741
Conversation
As observed in cross-rs/cross#1100, in some situations `*-gcc-ar` might actually be just broken. I believe this is most likely just a plain bug in gcc (failing to consider `--disable-lto` configuration option somewhere in their build setup,) but for the time being `*-ar` tends to avoid this problem altogether. Code added in rust-lang#736 appears to be preferring `*-gcc-ar`, but no strong rationale is given to prefer one over the other. `*-gcc-ar` being outright broken sometimes seems like a rationale strong enough to continue preferring binutils’ `ar`.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think ideally we'd prefer whichever one is "newer", but yeah, given that you've observed gcc-ar
being broken, seems fine to me to swap the preference 👍
Sometimes `gcc-ar` is broken, so when both are available we should prefer non-gcc-ar. See also rust-lang/cc-rs#741.
I've also updated alexcrichton/openssl-src-rs#164 to have the updated preference. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yep, seems good to me.
I'll get this in a release this weekend (hopefully sooner), sorry for the issues. |
What's the status on getting this released? |
Very soon. Release notes might be delayed a little but should be published within the next day, probably (still not automated and for various reasons is a multi-person ordeal) |
As observed in cross-rs/cross#1100, in some situations
*-gcc-ar
might actually be just broken.I believe this is most likely just a plain bug in gcc (failing to consider
--disable-lto
configuration option somewhere in their build setup,) but for the time being*-ar
tends to avoid this problem altogether.Code added in #736 appears to be preferring
*-gcc-ar
, but no strong rationale is given to prefer one over the other.*-gcc-ar
being outright broken sometimes seems like a rationale strong enough to continue preferring binutils’ar
.