This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
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 <stevenb.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Richard Guenther
> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> 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
again.
Richard.