This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: [PATCH] Properly do the LTO bytecode version check


On Tue, 4 Mar 2014, Marc Glisse wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Mar 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
> 
> > We're doing the LTO bytecode version check only for two section
> > types at the moment - specifically _not_ for the first section
> > we read.  Which causes us to crash instead of reporting a
> > version mismatch ...
> 
> Not for 4.9, but when the object is fat, could we downgrade this version
> mismatch error to a warning and use the non-LTO code? (Or does that need to be
> done in ld?) The current workaround is to strip the objects involved I think.

Yes, that needs to be done in the linker plugin - it simply should
not claim the object (or issue it to a proper GCC version ...).

For this reason the check is still in the wrong place ... but how
we identify LTO objects in the linker-plugin is simply gross.

Richard.


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