Rewrite //go:cgo_ldflag comments to relative paths in stdlib action
#4005
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The linker flags passed to the stdlib action need to contain absolute paths to work in Go's own build environment, but should not pollute the resulting archives with absolute paths. Since cgo persists the linker flags in `//go:cgo_ldflag` comments, those are now rewritten by the (renamed) filterbuildid command.
|
#4009 is a more general solution |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What type of PR is this?
Bug fix
What does this PR do? Why is it needed?
The linker flags passed to the stdlib action need to contain absolute paths to work in Go's own build environment, but should not pollute the resulting archives with absolute paths. Since cgo persists the linker flags in
//go:cgo_ldflagcomments, those are now rewritten by the (renamed) filterbuildid command.Which issues(s) does this PR fix?
Fixes #3994
Other notes for review