This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH,lto] Fix PR42690 and related LTO-vs-static-linking issues.
On 16/11/2010 16:33, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> Are we sure that all -l options are joined ones? The driver accepts
>> -l m just fine.
>
> The driver converts -l options to joined form when passing them to
> add_infile. I don't know about the -l options contained directly in
> specs; that's what would need checking. (Specs other than those in
> driver_self_specs do not go through the option processing machinery; they
> are generating command lines for programs other than the driver.)
>
>> I'm ok with the patch if Joseph thinks it is ok.
>
> I have no comments on this patch.
Right you are. I'll test the patch with separated -l options and see if it
works; if not, I'll submit a respin, but if it does work, can I take this
discussion as approval? (Also, bear in mind that the spec function only gets
applied to link_gcc_c_sequence: it doesn't need to be fully generic, except of
course that we haven't ever explicitly banned separated -l options in specs;
that said, there probably aren't any.)
BTW, the lto-bootstrap completed even on Cygwin (I don't know however if
this implies that PR45325 is resolved, or was just lucky not to trip it on
this occasion). Test results will take a day or two to arrive, as ever.
cheers,
DaveK