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: Fix linker plugin support for gnu linker


"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> writes:

>> My counter-argument is that the entire linker plugin system was designed
>> from the start to avoid 2 stage linking. ÂI don't think my patch is a
>> hack. ÂI think it is an appropriate adjustment to handle an unusual case
>> which the original plugin design did not consider: new symbol references
>> inserted by the compiler which were not present in the original code.
>
> My counter-argument is "an unusual case" isn't that unusual.

It seems to me to be fairly unusual.  Most test cases are working fine
without either of our patches.  The only cases that fail are when
linking libc or libm or libgcc statically, which is in itself uncommon
these days, in combination with certain very specific optimizations
which only occur for some code.


> Avoiding  2 stage linking makes the whole LTO infrastructure
> unnecessarily more complex.

But, I want to say this carefully and I hope that you will read it
carefully, that work has already been done and was part of the linker
plugin design from the very beginning.  Yes, it is more complex.  But
the work has already been done and it is already working.  Except for
this rather unusual case, and I have already shown how a simple and
small extension to the plugin design accounts for this case as well.

Ian


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