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,RFC] collect2 LTO for AIX

From: Jim Wilson <jimw at sifive dot com>
To: David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 08:01:37 -0800
Subject: Re: [PATCH,RFC] collect2 LTO for AIX
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.gcc.patches
References: <CAGWvnymeyvkoqoxnjvQGhTv3UfVgpPW3wpuFW2-gUtt0krSA=g@mail.gmail.com> <0ee55db0-8824-bfb9-33c0-a27ad39c5add@redhat.com> <CAGWvnymPTqmPQL37u5SbGBaLdrijOKg43gD57PisodiinjuuWA@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/31/2017 12:11 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:

With your recent removal of SDB and -gcoff support, I would appreciate
your advice about my patch to incrementally add some preliminary LTO
support for AIX to collect2.c:

https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-10/msg00893.html

There don't seem to be any other COFF targets around that still use
the collect2 code to manually scan object and archive files. And I
don't think that they would be hurt by the additional search for the
LTO symbol.  I want to check if anyone is aware of a potential problem
before I commit the code.


The patch is OK.

cygwin uses collect2, but it is using the generic support, not the COFFspecific support.

The generic support has a check for to verify that we have an objectfile and not an archive file. See maybe_lto_object_file. You mightwant to add equivalent code to the COFF support.

Jim

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH,RFC] collect2 LTO for AIX
  - From: David Edelsohn

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