Re: PATCH: Fix linker plugin support for gnu linker

["H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>]

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> By the same token, I have implemented 2 stage linking in GNU linker
>> and it works with the current linker plugin ABI.
>
> But that is really not the same token. ?I am saying: the plugin was
> designed to avoid 2 stage linking. ?You are saying: I can do 2 stage
> linking with the plugin. ?That is true, but you can also do 2 stage
> linking with a much simpler plugin.

What I meant was "the work for 2 stage linking in GNU linker has
already been done and it is already working."

>> If you think this is a "rather unusual case" and the current
>> design/implementation works for majority cases, I don't see
>> big problems for GNU linker to do 2 stage linking and gold keeps
>> the current behavior.
>
> I don't want gold to keep the current behaviour, because that is clearly
> buggy (for an unusual case). ?I am suggesting that gold adopt the patch
> I sent out (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-12/msg00347.html) which
> solves all cases that I know about.

I still don't see big problems for GNU linker to do 2 stage linking and
gold implements your proposal.


-- 
H.J.