From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30295 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 2010 13:19:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 30270 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Oct 2010 13:19:01 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from bromo.med.uc.edu (HELO bromo.med.uc.edu) (129.137.3.146) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with SMTP; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:18:56 +0000 Received: from bromo.med.uc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by bromo.med.uc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEA6EB0076; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 09:18:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from howarth@localhost) by bromo.med.uc.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id o9TDIrIv025187; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 09:18:53 -0400 Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:45:00 -0000 From: Jack Howarth To: Dave Korn Cc: Ian Lance Taylor , Andi Kleen , Andrew Pinski , Mark Mitchell , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Discussion about merging Go frontend Message-ID: <20101029131853.GA25158@bromo.med.uc.edu> References: <4CC45302.9000702@gmail.com> <4CC59F1E.7040505@codesourcery.com> <87pquy3yh5.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <4CC60C5E.6050605@gmail.com> <4CCA8C22.8030308@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4CCA8C22.8030308@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-10/txt/msg02491.txt.bz2 On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 09:56:02AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: > On 29/10/2010 02:31, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > Dave Korn > > >> What would be even nicer would be if we could share the same code-reader > >> interface between lto and go (and the lto-plugin), thereby getting object > >> format independence equally everywhere for no extra cost. > > > > How about this? > > That looks excellent, thank you! > > > This implements an object file reader/writer which does everything > > required by LTO and gccgo. The ELF code works. I have not tested the > > Mach-O and COFF code at all beyond compiling it; I hope that somebody > > else can test those targets and fix them. > > I'm right here :) Can't help with Darwin but hopefully Jack/Iain will be > available. > Dave, Doesn't the go compiler require functional split stack support? Mike Stump left me with the impression that split stack support would require additional linker support on darwin. Jack > > With this patch, libelf is no longer needed. > > > > I've bootstrapped this on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, and I've run the LTO > > testsuite. > > > > This patch puts the code in libiberty, but it could equally well go in > > gcc. Anybody want to make an argument one way or another? > > Libiberty is better for sharing with lto-plugin, I think. I sent a patch > that commoned out some of the COFF-reader code into gcc/, but I only put it > there because it was a single header file with no associated object file. Now > there's actual code to be linked in, I think libiberty is a better choice than > lto-plugin trying to share .o files from the ../gcc/ objdir. > > > Does the general interface look OK? > > > > This patch requires approval from the LTO maintainers. > > Also, I have a patch outstanding to COFF-ize the lto-plugin(*), so if we can > get an early "OK in principle" I'll get cracking on respinning it to use this > new interface. > > cheers, > DaveK > -- > (*) - http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg02176.html