Re: forcing most functions of libiberty in plugin-enabled cc1

[Basile STARYNKEVITCH <basile at starynkevitch dot net>]

Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Basile STARYNKEVITCH
> <basile@starynkevitch.net> wrote:
> > Hello All,
> >
> > A plugin using a function in libiberty like make_temp_file fail to be
> > dlopen-ed, because cc1 don't have it.
> >
> > We did discuss in
> >   http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-07/msg00166.html &
> >   http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-07/msg00157.html
> > the usefulness of linking all (or at least most of) libliberty.a inside cc1
> > for plugin usage.
>
> This is completely broken.  Instead link libiberty.a with --whole-archive
> when plugins are enabled.


That won't work on non-binutils systems (AFAIK --whole-archive is a binutils options to the linker), and the point of 
libiberty is precisely to provide a portability layer.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-07/msg00174.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-07/msg00175.html

I do agree that the patch is quick & dirty. But:

 * it is portable AFAIK (since they is no language tricks)

 * it should work on any (even obscure) plateform

 * the only thing impacted is the resulting cc1 binary size. No additionnal code is executed!

I would like some comments by people familiar with non-linux systems (and systems whose linkers is not the binutils one) 
providing a dlopen. Of course, if we only targeted linux (which I would be happy with) the proposed patch is crap.

Regards.


--
Basile STARYNKEVITCH         http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/
email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359
8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France
*** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***