This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org mailing list for the binutils 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: 2 stage BFD linker for LTO plugin


On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 5:02 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote:
>> "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote:
>>>> Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 09:57:14AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>>>> Personally, I think 2 stage linking is one way to fix this issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ian has stated that he thinks this is a really bad idea. ?I haven't
>>>>> approved the patch because I value Ian's opinion, and can see why he
>>>>> thinks it is the wrong way to go. ?On the other hand, BFD is full of
>>>>> bad ideas.. ?I'm not strongly opposed to your patch myself.
>>>>
>>>> Why don't we spend a short amount of time fixing these relatively minor
>>>> issues in lto-plugin without going all the way to two-stage linking?
>>>
>>> The issues may be "relatively minor". ?But proper fix without
>>> two-stage linking may be quite tricky.
>>
>> I see no particular reason why that should be the case. ?The issues are
>> conceptually simple.
>
> I'd like to a gold implementation which works on all known cases.
>

BTW, gold LTO plugin miscompiled 416.gamess in SPEC CPU 2006:

http://www.sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12244

BFD linker plugin is OK.

-- 
H.J.


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