This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH,lto] Fix PR42690 and related LTO-vs-static-linking issues.
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:33 PM, Dave Korn <dave.korn.cygwin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17/11/2010 10:36, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Dave Korn <dave.korn.cygwin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 16/11/2010 16:33, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Are we sure that all -l options are joined ones? ?The driver accepts
>>>>> -l ?m just fine.
>>>> The driver converts -l options to joined form when passing them to
>>>> add_infile. ?I don't know about the -l options contained directly in
>>>> specs; that's what would need checking. ?(Specs other than those in
>>>> driver_self_specs do not go through the option processing machinery; they
>>>> are generating command lines for programs other than the driver.)
>>>>
>>>>> I'm ok with the patch if Joseph thinks it is ok.
>>>> I have no comments on this patch.
>>>
>>> ?Right you are. ?I'll test the patch with separated -l options and see if it
>>> works; if not, I'll submit a respin,
>
> ?Herewith the respin. ?Same ChangeLog as before; only differences from
> previous version are contained to pass_through_libs_spec_func().
>
> ?LTO-bootstrap and test cycle in progress on i686-pc-cygwin. ?OK once that
> completes successfully?
Ok.
Thanks,
Richard.
> ? ?cheers,
> ? ? ?DaveK
>