Re: [RFC] Getting LTO incremental linking work

[Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>]

> > In theory we could change the build system to avoid that case though, but
> > it would need some changes.
> > 
> > It would be better if that could be handled somehow.
> 
> How does this work with your patchset?  Ideally we should have way to claim
> only portions of object files, but we don't have that. If we claim the file,
> the symbols in real symbol table are not visible.

It works with HJ's Linux binutils. It handles LTO and non LTO separately.

> I suppose we could play a games here with slim LTO: claim the file, see if
> there are any symbols defined in the non-LTO symbol table and if so, interpret
> read the symbol table and tell linker about the symbols and at the very end
> include the offending object file in the list of objects returned back to
> linker.
> 
> The linker then should take the symbols it wants.  There would be some fun
> involved, because the resolution info we get will consider the symbols
> defined in that object file to be IR which would need to be compensated for.

Yes something like that would be needed.

-Andi

-- 
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only