This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR41529

From: Richard Guenther <rguenther at suse dot de>
To: Dave Korn <dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail dot com>
Cc: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Kai Tietz <ktietz70 at googlemail dot com>, Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 14:50:45 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR41529
References: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1001021257370.17161@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> <4B3F4BD2.4010206@gmail.com> <4B3F4B6D.1080101@gnu.org> <90baa01f1001020539j12ab5f77lf7a1855bf135f2cf@mail.gmail.com> <84fc9c001001020541rb06c4cfi373e80ed3044f2b0@mail.gmail.com> <4B3F52CF.5060405@gmail.com>

On Sat, 2 Jan 2010, Dave Korn wrote:

> Richard Guenther wrote:
> 
> > LTO produces mixed object-files.  They are supposed to link fine
> > to an executable w/o going through lto1.  Does this all work?
> > I doubt so.
> 
>   Do the LTO tests in the testcase cover it?  There's no reason why it
> shouldn't work.  The ordinary object sections will just link like usual.  The
> LTO sections will be treated as orphans, dunno exactly what will happen to
> them but they won't matter.  Why should there be a problem?

Because libelf cannot read them?

Richard.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PR41529
  - From: Dave Korn

References:
- [PATCH] Fix PR41529
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PR41529
  - From: Dave Korn
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PR41529
  - From: Paolo Bonzini
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PR41529
  - From: Kai Tietz
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PR41529
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PR41529
  - From: Dave Korn

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]