On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> wrote: > "H.J. Lu" <hjl.to...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 6:29 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> The initial implementation of my proposal is available on hjl/lto-mixed >>>> branch at >>>> >>>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=devel/binutils/hjl/x86.git;a=summary >>> >>> I don't know how to separate this idea from the other work on that branch. >> >> It is implemented on top of 2 stage linking infrastructure. > > Yes, which makes it hard to separate. The idea is distinct from 2 stage > linking, as far as I can tell. I'm sure you saw my alternative proposal
That is true. It happens to need similar book keeping as 2 stage linking. > to 2 stage linking. I saw it. Gold and ld can use different approaches to support plugin as long as they work with the same GCC driver binary. > >> Linker knows nothing about the magic names. >> >> * Linker action: >> o Classify each input object file: >> * If there is a ".gnu_object_only" section, it is a mixed object file. >> * If there is a IR section, it is an IR object file. >> >> Linker checks if an object is claimed by the plugin. If yes, >> it has an IR section. Otherwise, it has no IR. >> >> * Otherwise, it is a non-IR object file. > > Thanks for the clarification. I will try again to understand the > proposal. > I will update my proposal. Any feedbacks/comments are welcom/ Thanks. -- H.J.
