GCC GO has not moved away from split stack. I think GCC GO should be supported.
There are a few other items on the parity list before ld -r support is needed. Including inside the kernel. -----Original Message----- From: Adhemerval Zanella [mailto:adhemerval.zane...@linaro.org] Sent: Monday, January 4, 2016 5:33 AM To: Pinski, Andrew <andrew.pin...@caviumnetworks.com>; Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pi...@linaro.org> Cc: Jim Wilson <jim.wil...@linaro.org>; Linaro Toolchain Mailman List <linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org> Subject: Re: mixed LTO support for 'ld -r' These are orthogonal requests, let's track them independently. Also, although I noticed s390 work to add split-stack support, my understanding is it is mainly aimed for go runtime support and current go moved *away* from split-stack [1]. Which are the current usercases aimed for split-stack support currently? [1] http://tip.golang.org/doc/go1.4#runtime On 23-12-2015 18:17, Pinski, Andrew wrote: > Note I rather see split stack support than ld -r LTO support done. I think > most enterprise folks would too. > > Thanks, > Andrew > > -----Original Message----- > From: linaro-toolchain > [mailto:linaro-toolchain-boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of > Nicolas Pitre > Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 9:41 AM > To: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zane...@linaro.org> > Cc: Jim Wilson <jim.wil...@linaro.org>; Linaro Toolchain Mailman List > <linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org> > Subject: Re: mixed LTO support for 'ld -r' > > On Wed, 23 Dec 2015, Adhemerval Zanella wrote: > >> >> >>> Em 22 de dez de 2015, às 14:22, Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pi...@linaro.org> >>> escreveu: >>> >>>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, Jim Wilson wrote: >>>> >>>> I tracked the bulk of the patch back to April 2011, though some new >>>> LTO related testsuite changes date back to January 2011. The >>>> initial patch submission for the bulk of the patch appears to be >>>> https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2011-04/msg00275.html >>>> It is a large patch, and HJ had to update it twice in the next 24 >>>> hours to fix problems with it. The size would have discouraged an >>>> immediate review. And the fact that it was updated twice in 24 >>>> hours after posting would have discouraged reviewers even more. >>> >>> Multiple revisions in a few days isn't uncommon. But 5 years have >>> passed at this point. >>> >>>> People were perhaps waiting for the final version of the patch >>>> before trying to review it, and then accidentally forgot about it >>>> along the way. I don't see any discussion of the patch at the >>>> time. And I haven't seen any attempt to resubmit it, though I >>>> could have missed something. >>>> >>>> I see that the issue was discussed earlier in December 2010. HJ >>>> made a proposal for a fix, and there was feedback at that time. >>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-12/msg00229.html >>>> it looks like there were 3 separate related threads which may have >>>> confused the issue a bit. >>>> https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2010-12/msg00012.html >>>> https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2010-12/msg00182.html >>>> https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2010-12/msg00231.html >>>> >>>> Anyways, the size of the patch suggests using caution and waiting >>>> for upstream review. Though I did find a reference that suggests >>>> Fedora is using it >>>> >>>> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/scm-commits/Week-of-Mon-2 >>>> 0130513/1022584.html which suggests that it may be well tested. >>>> This was done by Nick Clifton, who is one of the binutils >>>> maintainers, so maybe we just need someone to ask about the status >>>> of the patch on the binutils mailing list to remind people that it >>>> still needs to be reviewed for the upstream FSF binutils tree. >>> >>> Could you (i.e. someone in the toolchain team) take care of this? >> >> I will sort this out when I get back from holidays. > > Great, thank you. > > > Nicolas > _______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
