On Mon, 30 May 2011, Rainer Orth wrote: > Rainer Orth <r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de> writes: > > > Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com> writes: > > > >> I think we should do the linker version checks which relate to > >> linker-plugin > >> use on the plugin-linker instead. So if I specify a separate but known > >> buggy linker I don't want it to be used by default. > > > > Here's a patch that does this. I'm not at all happy with the patch > > since it partially duplicates the logic to determine linker version > > numbers. While this could (and probably should) be generalized along > > the lines of gcc_GAS_CHECK_FEATURE and gcc_GAS_VERSION_GTE_IFELSE, even > > that wouldn't help immediately since such autoconf macros would still > > $gcc_cv_ld. As far as I can see, all those linker checks could > > massively benefit from an overhaul to use gcc_LD_CHECK_FEATURE > > etc.macros, but that's not something I want to attack. It's especially > > messy that there are two sets of version variables for in-tree and > > external linkers. Probably fodder for the build maintainers. > > > > Anyway, here's what I've got. Tested by configuring with > > > > * no --with-ld arg (i.e. /usr/ccs/bin/ld) > > > > * --with-ld=/path/to/gld-2.21 --with-gnu-ld > > > > * --with-plugin-ld=/path/to/gld-2.21 > > > > * --with-ld=/path/to/gld-2.21 --with-gnu-ld --with-plugin-ld=/usr/ccs/bin/ld > > > > and checking HAVE_LTO_PLUGIN in auto-host.h (0, 2, 2, 0). > > > > I haven't found if there are provisions for in-tree gold, though, and > > still cannot test that. > [...] > > Could the whole bunch eventually be backported to the 4.6 branch? > > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg00759.html > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg01890.html > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg01250.html > > > > and this one? > > This question remains: is this series appropriate for the 4.6 branch or > should it stay on mainline only?
I think it should stay on mainline for now. Richard.
