Andrew Pinski <pins...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> wrote: >> At least, that is how I see it. > > Why not require libelf just like for LTO? That seems like a time to > reduce what we depend on. For an example if we compile with lto and > go, GCC will use two different elf libraries. This seems dumb really.
libelf is rather awkward and has different implementations with different bugs and also usually needs to be installed explicitely on Linux. It would be better to make LTO use Ian's library (but then it's C++ I believe, not C) -Andi -- a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
