Re: [lto, doc] Use nm -png in collect2 on Solaris 2

[Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>]

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Dave Korn <dave.korn.cygwin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16/11/2010 17:08, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> and on sparc-sun-solaris2.10 where it exposed 181 regressions. ?Eric
>> already described the issue in
>>
>> ? ? ? http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg00642.html
>>
>> but got no reply whatsoever.
>
> ?Sorry Eric, I saw and have kept your email aside, but wanted to finish
> dealing with PR462690 before I replied.
>
>> Would it be acceptable to deal with this in libiberty/simple-object-elf.c
>> (simple_object_elf_attributes_compare) the same way it was done in
>> gcc/lto/lto-elf.c (is_compatible_architecture) before, i.e. upgrade
>> attrs1->machine to EM_SPARC32PLUS if a v8plus object file is added?
>
> ?Yes, I think adding the machine info to the attributes is the best solution,
> it was certainly what I planned to try doing.

Btw, I thought about removing this __gnu_lto_v1 special symbol as it
causes problems elsewhere (PR43542 for example).  With simple-object
we should be able to just check for the presence of one of the standard
LTO section names, for example .gnu.lto_.opts which is one that is
not mangled for partial linking.

So, it would be really nice to get rid of the special symbol.

Richard.

>> It would be good to have this breakage fixed soon, given that is has
>> existed for almost two weeks since the introduction of the
>> simple_object_* functions.
>
> ?Again, sorry; not forgotten but I should have said I'd put it on my to-do
> list. ?It was a matter of getting major features in during stage 1 so that we
> could fix any bugs arising during stage 3...
>
> ?Shall I leave it with you, or would you like me to go and have a bash at it?
> ?I'm not a SPARC expert but if you pointed me at a testcase I could go use the
> cfarm machines to test a patch.
>
> ? ?cheers,
> ? ? ?DaveK
>