On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 9:59 AM Jeff Law <jeffreya...@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? Thanks. -- H.J.
