[PATCH] Properly do the LTO bytecode version check

[Marc Glisse]

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.

-- 
Marc Glisse