Re: [committed] Fix more problems with new linker warnings

[Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 7:54 PM H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 9:59 AM Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/28/2022 10:27 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 9:10 AM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
> > > <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> > >> As I mentioned in the original thread, my change to pr94157_0 was an
> > >> attempt to avoid these warnings by passing a magic flag to the linker.
> > >> Of course we may not be using GNU ld.  Or we may be on a non-elf target
> > >> where the flag I used doesn't exist.  Or we may even be on a ELF target
> > >> where those bits weren't added to the linker (frv).  Furthermore, we
> > >> need fixes to all the nested function tests as well.
> > >>
> > >> So even though I initially resisted pruning the warning, that seems like
> > >> the best course of action.  So this patch removes my recent change to
> > >> pr94157_0 and instead uses our pruning facilities.
> > >>
> > >> I'll be pushing this to the trunk and gcc-12 branch.
> > >>
> > > Can you backport it to other release branches?
> > I wasn't planning to, but can if the RMs want it.
> > jeff
>
> Hi Jakub, Ricard,
>
> Is it OK to backport the new linker support to GCC 11 and
> GCC 10 branches?

It's OK if no problems have been reported for a while.

Thanks,
Richard.

> Thanks.
>
> --
> H.J.