Re: Discussion about merging Go frontend

[Dave Korn <dave dot korn dot cygwin at gmail dot com>]

On 29/10/2010 02:31, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Dave Korn <dave.korn.cygwin@  writes:
> 
>>   What would be even nicer would be if we could share the same code-reader
>> interface between lto and go (and the lto-plugin), thereby getting object
>> format independence equally everywhere for no extra cost.
> 
> How about this?

  That looks excellent, thank you!

> This implements an object file reader/writer which does everything
> required by LTO and gccgo.  The ELF code works.  I have not tested the
> Mach-O and COFF code at all beyond compiling it; I hope that somebody
> else can test those targets and fix them.

  I'm right here :) Can't help with Darwin but hopefully Jack/Iain will be
available.

> With this patch, libelf is no longer needed.
> 
> I've bootstrapped this on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, and I've run the LTO
> testsuite.
> 
> This patch puts the code in libiberty, but it could equally well go in
> gcc.  Anybody want to make an argument one way or another?

  Libiberty is better for sharing with lto-plugin, I think.  I sent a patch
that commoned out some of the COFF-reader code into gcc/, but I only put it
there because it was a single header file with no associated object file.  Now
there's actual code to be linked in, I think libiberty is a better choice than
lto-plugin trying to share .o files from the ../gcc/ objdir.

> Does the general interface look OK?
> 
> This patch requires approval from the LTO maintainers.

  Also, I have a patch outstanding to COFF-ize the lto-plugin(*), so if we can
get an early "OK in principle" I'll get cracking on respinning it to use this
new interface.

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
(*) - http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg02176.html