| |||||||||||||
On LTO builds with 32bit compilers.On LTO builds with 32bit compilers.Posted Aug 24, 2012 16:12 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)In reply to: On LTO builds with 32bit compilers. by malor Parent article: Link-time optimization for the kernel
They are, there's just little reason to use them - especially since you'll probably need to build in any loadable firmware, which may make the result undistributable.
(Log in to post comments)
On LTO builds with 32bit compilers. Posted Aug 24, 2012 23:01 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
that depends on the firmware on on your interpretation of the requirements for source for that firmware.
I haven't seen anyone sued for the source of a firmware blob if the firmware blob itself didn't included GPL code in it. (as opposed to the firmware blob being used as data by GPL code and uploaded to a device)
A lot of the linux kernel developers consider the splitting of the firmware out of the source tree to be a waste of time from a technical and legal point of view, but they don't fight it because it shuts up the people who think that it does matter from a legal point of view.
besides, the GPL only comes in to play when you distribute the resulting binary. There's a huge amount of stuff that you can do (especially in a large company) without triggering this.
On LTO builds with 32bit compilers. Posted Aug 25, 2012 4:44 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
"Which may make the result undistributable" - you appear to have just spent several paragraphs agreeing with me. What was your point?
On LTO builds with 32bit compilers. Posted Aug 25, 2012 5:06 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
Ok, "MAY" make the result undistributable, heavy emphasis and lots of doubt on the word MAY
There are a LOT of people who don't think it would.
Also, even if it did, it wouldn't matter for lots of people, because they don't distribute the resulting binaries.
|
|||||||||||||