This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: LTO multiple definition failures


On 01/02/2012 12:22 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
Sandra Loosemore<sandra@codesourcery.com> writes:

I'm still finding my way around LTO; can anyone who's more familiar with this help narrow down where to look for the cause of this? I don't even know if this is a compiler or ld bug at this point. I'm

I would look into the interaction between the LTO plugin and your ld (and also try gold if you can)

Generally there are still various issues in these areas which need
workarounds in the LTOed programs, for some things (like ld -r and some
ar) you also need the latest version of HJ Lu's binutils which implement
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-12/msg00229.html

A lot of older binutils lds also tended to mishandle mixed LTOed ar
archives.

For avoidance of doubt, I was using mainline HEAD for both gcc and binutils for my powerpc-none-eabi experiments last week. The port for our new target is based on GCC 4.6 and a binutils branch from a few months ago, but it looked to me like the ld/gcc interaction was basically the same -- the link error being triggered by a difference in the startup code on the two targets, instead.


Anyway, the problem here isn't that I particularly care about coming up with some workaround to make LTO work, but rather that tests from the gcc testsuite are failing on this target because of what looks like buggy LTO behavior instead of bugs in the target support, and I wanted to be sure this was being tracked somewhere. I didn't see a relevant issue in either the gcc or binutils bugzillas, but if it's a known consequence of the ld -r problem, I'll shut up and go away again. ;-)

-Sandra


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