Cleanup Dragonfly-specific librustc_back target options #28211
Conversation
mneumann
commented
Sep 3, 2015
mneumann
commented
- Remove support for i686 (DragonFly dropped support of that architecture).
- Remove not-required target options.
DragonFly no longer supports this architecture since 4.0.
Our options now matches those of freebsd_base.rs.
|
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
Not sure about this change. Surely there’s older dragonflies out there that still run on i686 and could run rust produced executables, aren’t there? |
| @@ -16,20 +16,10 @@ pub fn opts() -> TargetOptions { | |||
| linker: "cc".to_string(), | |||
| dynamic_linking: true, | |||
| executables: true, | |||
| linker_is_gnu: true, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just confirming, but it looks like the only place this is used is passing the -O1 flag to the linker, and the dragonfly linker doesn't support that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hm, I wonder why FreeBSD (freebsd_base.rs) removed linker_is_gnu then. ld in DragonFly is gnu. So this clearly has to stay.
|
@nagisa: I doubt there are any i686 DragonFly's out there as it's depreciation has been announced quite some time ago, and even long before that, no one really used it. For sure, it doesn't hurt keeping support for it in Rust, but on the other hand, supporting an unmaintained (and as such potential insecure) platform might not be the right choice. |
|
Closing this pull request for now. I think the only thing that should be removed are the paths "-L/usr/local/lib" and "-L/usr/lib/gcc47" from |
|
Ah ok, feel free to submit a PR regardless to remove those options, they do indeed seem a little sketchy! Also if you want to add some of the flags and such to the FreeBSD options again feel free to do so as well! |
|
@alexcrichton I am not sure what the exact reasoning is behind the FreeBSD options. My pure guess is that they use the |
