From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30745 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2011 00:50:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 30732 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Dec 2011 00:50:09 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Dec 2011 00:49:56 +0000 From: "steven at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug lto/48094] ld: warning: section has unexpectedly large size errors in objc/obj-c++ lto Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 00:50:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: lto X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: steven at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-12/txt/msg00503.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48094 Steven Bosscher changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |steven at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #13 from Steven Bosscher 2011-12-06 00:49:26 UTC --- (In reply to comment #12) > I guess, ideally, the ObjC meta-data should be re-created after LTO has done > its magic -- but that's def. not a stage 3 type job ... Ideally from what point of view? Certainly not that of one where there is proper separation between front ends and the middle end. There are no language specific post optimization passes. From the point of view of the LTO front end, whatever the ObjC-family front ends have handed over is language independent. But those two L_OBJC_ImageInfo variables have a number appended. Is that supposed to be so? Or is this LTO declaration merging at work and maybe you want to avoid that? (Maybe I'm talking completely non-sense, but something like that came up for PR47259 also...)