[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] make sure $TMPE is executable
Fri Sep 11 12:55:50 CEST 2009
Reimar D?ffinger <Reimar.Doeffinger at gmx.de> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 07:42:52PM +0200, Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 06:28:51PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> > Reimar D?ffinger <Reimar.Doeffinger at gmx.de> writes:
>> > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 02:29:56PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> > >> Reimar D?ffinger <Reimar.Doeffinger at gmx.de> writes:
>> > >> > it seems that "GNU gold (GNU Binutils 2.19.1) 1.7" has a strange bug
>> > >>
>> > >> What's that?
>> > >
>> > > The "new", supposedly much better and faster (IIRC ELF-only?) linker...
>> > > Or to put it simpler, that's what you get when you do experiments and
>> > > set in Gentoo the "gold" use flag for binutils (and no Gentoo flaming,
>> > > I knew what I was getting myself into, allowing people to shoot
>> > > themselves in the foot is not generally a bit thing, if nothing else
>> > > it helps evolution along - though mostly I was hoping that maybe then
>> > > compiling C++ programs would no longer be about 10 times slower than
>> > > plain C).
>> > So apart form this little quirk, is it any better? Not that I'm
>> > concerned about linking times myself.
>> Haven't noticed a difference yet. Though I might when the next Qt update
>> or something comes up. I'll probably notice when those libtool processes
>> with several minutes of CPU time finally don't appear anymore (though I
>> doubt that will happen...).
> Even though its off-topic: There is no point in even bothering with
> this, if you use the gold linker you can't even compile e.g.
> libschroedinger or such obscure stuff as the linux kernel.
> And I haven't even tried many applications (I guess one more case where
> "optimized for C++" means "and don't expect it to even work for anything
It baffles me how linking c++ code is in any way different from
linking C code. The object file formats are the same.
mans at mansr.com
More information about the ffmpeg-devel