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 1/2] Add -print-lto-plugin

From: Andi Kleen <andi at firstfloor dot org>
To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi at firstfloor dot org>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Andi Kleen <ak at linux dot intel dot com>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:35:55 +0200
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add -print-lto-plugin
References: <1288352817-24819-1-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org> <1288352817-24819-2-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org> <AANLkTik2n1nEStz+K8TRungR9esNjSyo15P+0bAQh2Vo@mail.gmail.com>

> [hjl@gnu-6 gcc]$ grep LTOPLUGINSONAME configure.ac
> AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(LTOPLUGINSONAME,"${host_lto_plugin_soname}",
> [hjl@gnu-6 gcc]$
> 
> Why not add LTOPLUGINSONAME to Makefile? Then you can use
> "gcc --print ...=$(LTOPLUGINSONAME)" to generate your scripts?

To which Makefile? The scripts should be called from arbitary
projects, not just the gcc makefile.

I'm not sure why you're so against that option anyways,
gcc has a couple of similar options to solve similar problems, 
why not have one more that is convenient?

-Andi

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add -print-lto-plugin
  - From: H.J. Lu

References:
- Add LTO binutils wrappers
  - From: Andi Kleen
- [PATCH 1/2] Add -print-lto-plugin
  - From: Andi Kleen
- Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add -print-lto-plugin
  - From: H.J. Lu

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