From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2447 invoked by alias); 5 Aug 2011 18:52:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 2438 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Aug 2011 18:52:52 -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; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 18:52:39 +0000 From: "howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/48108] lto should be containerized in a single mach-o section on darwin X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Keywords: lto X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 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: 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 Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 18:52:00 -0000 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: 2011-08/txt/msg00658.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48108 --- Comment #17 from Jack Howarth 2011-08-05 18:52:05 UTC --- (In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #11) > > Created attachment 24397 [details] > > Iain's work in progress for LTO containerization > > Sorry that I can't commit any time to GCC right now. > > The main outstanding issue with this patch is that the intermediate files > created by GCC are still unbounded in the number of sections. > > So long as the only consumer of those files is GCC, no problem (since the > arrangement has been made to ensure that relocatable sections come first). > > However, those intermediate files are still technically 'wrong' and therefore > the writer should be updated to do the same encapsulation. Once that is done > there will be no need to retain the ability to recognize GCC vs 'normal' > objects. Should we really be so hung up on the intermediate file issue? After all, why would anyone try to use object files generated with -flto with a compiler that doesn't support -flto. I would argue that this prevents users from accidentally disabling the -flto in that case (where they erroneously use a non-LTO aware compiler). This could simply be marked as a TODO.