This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Use the LTO linker plugin by default
- From: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>
- To: Rainer Orth <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 17:43:51 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use the LTO linker plugin by default
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 11 dot 1403041241510 dot 11121 at zhemvz dot fhfr dot qr> <ydd8usl9bqu dot fsf at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 11 dot 1403101541080 dot 6041 at zhemvz dot fhfr dot qr> <yddvbvmrsms dot fsf at lokon dot CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 11 dot 1403110940460 dot 6041 at zhemvz dot fhfr dot qr> <yddeh27r7lv dot fsf at lokon dot CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 11 dot 1403130945190 dot 6041 at zhemvz dot fhfr dot qr> <yddob1aph9x dot fsf at lokon dot CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 11 dot 1403131052250 dot 6041 at zhemvz dot fhfr dot qr> <ydda9cummq1 dot fsf at lokon dot CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE> <yddwqfwsr4l dot fsf at lokon dot CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE>
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Rainer Orth <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> writes:
>
> >>> > For this particular case at least.
> >>> >
> >>> > Note that I'm not against linking against static libgcc_s for
> >>> > lto-plugin. The -static-libstdc++ we use is just because during
> >>> > bootstrap picking up the correct libstdc++ was deemed too hard
> >>> > to implement and thus the easy way out was -static-libstdc++.
> >>>
> >>> So how should we go forward with this issue? This bootstrap failure is
> >>> a regression from all previous releases. As I said, I'd rather not
> >>> duplicate the -static-libgcc test from the toplevel, but would do so if
> >>> all else fails. Perhaps Paolo could weigh in as the build maintainer?
> >>
> >> Yeah, I'd like a build maintainer to look over your first proposed patch
> >> (workaround libtools nicyness).
> >
> > Just one additional data point: I've checked mainline libtool, and it
> > still doesn't handle (meaning: still drops)
> > -static-libgcc/-static-libstdc++. At least they have some hints in
> > their documentation on what testing etc. it takes to get additional
> > options passed through to the compiler/linker.
>
> I'm now testing this alternative. So far, I've just manually configured
> lto-plugin with CC=cc (Solaris Studio cc, no -static-libgcc) and CC=gcc
> and found that -static-libgcc is only used with gcc, as expected. I've
> checked that -static-libgcc is supported as far back as 3.4.6 (probably
> even far older), so the $GCC check should be enough.
Yeah, only -static-libstdc++ is relatively new. And we require at least
GCC 3.4.x for bootstrapping anyway.
> I'm including it in this weekend's bootstraps on Solaris and Linux.
Looks good to me, thus ok if the bootstraps work.
Thanks,
Richard.