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: Success with MinGW and AVR and LTO - almost

From: Andrew Hutchinson <andrewhutchinson at cox dot net>
To: Rafael Espindola <espindola at google dot com>
Cc: GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Denis Chertykov <chertykov at gmail dot com>, Anatoly Sokolov <aesok at post dot ru>, "Weddington, Eric" <Eric dot Weddington at atmel dot com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 15:17:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Success with MinGW and AVR and LTO - almost
References: <4B49DEA8.2080909@cox.net> <38a0d8451001101205g4e4f6740iec008e837a44d2b@mail.gmail.com>

I think "rb" is nop. However, O_BINARY is less portable.

There is another way. If MinGW hosted build is linked with binmode.o - the default for files become binary Some other methods are here:

http://oldwiki.mingw.org/index.php/binary

Rafael Espindola wrote:

I hacked fopen/open calls in  lto.c and lto-elf.c to use O_BINARY and "rb"
and compilation with -flto was then successful!

I am not sure how this should be fixed properly.


Using O_BINARY and "rb" should be a nop on unix, no? Is it wrong to
use them on any arch we care about?

Andy

Cheers,

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Success with MinGW and AVR and LTO - almost
  - From: Kai Tietz

References:
- Success with MinGW and AVR and LTO - almost
  - From: Andrew Hutchinson
- Re: Success with MinGW and AVR and LTO - almost
  - From: Rafael Espindola

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