This is the mail archive of the 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: lto1: internal compiler error: in lto_symtab_merge_decls_1, at lto-symtab.c:549

On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Steven Bosscher <> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Richard Guenther
> <> wrote:
>> No, gold should choose a single prevailing definition. ?The issue is that
>> gold and the linker-plugin seem to be unmaintained.
> Looking at the binutils list, there seems to be a lot of gold patching
> going on. Why do you believe it is unmaintained?

I meant that the combination of LTO + gold/-fuse-linker-plugin is
unmaintained.  Nobody is actively looking at bugreports with
that combination.

> For the plugin: is this not covered in the test suite (and if that's
> the problem, then what can we do about it)?

The testsuite does not cover -fuse-linker-plugin at all - it lacks at least
a feature test for it (not all configurations support it).  Thus, it's not
unfortunately possible to write a testcase excercising the
-fuse-linker-plugin path.

I'm somewhat uncomfortable that we have the two paths into LTO,
by using collect2 or the linker plugin.  Unfortunately the linker-plugin
is currently the only path that supports LTOing static libs.  As soon
as that issue is solved we should IMHO remove the linker-plugin path


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