https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> --- (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #2) > Note that Gold does not exhibit this issue. I think ld.bfd is at fault here. It is because gold doesn't check archive for a common definition. > We've hit similar issues with some internal plugin development. The main > issue is, ld.bfd feeds the plugin with objects extracted from static > archives, but those objects do not satisfy any unresolved references and > would not be extracted in the first place in non-LTO link. So ld.bfd is > causing useless extra work both for itself and the compiler plugin. > Is there a common symbol involved?
