https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17154
--- Comment #8 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. It was
generated because a ref change was pushed to the repository containing
the project "gdb and binutils".
The branch,
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13227
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13227
--- Comment #8 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. It was
generated because a ref change was pushed to the repository containing
the project "gdb and binutils".
The branch,
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13227
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|amodra at gm
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13557
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #10
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13227
--- Comment #7 from hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
> So is it sufficient (and safe) to warn just on the presence of __gnu_slim_lto?
Yes, when __gnu_slim_lto gets into linking/archiving/nm, I think it is safe to
warn about
missing plugin.
Honza
--
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13227
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #5)
> So is it sufficient (and safe) to warn just on the presence of
> __gnu_slim_lto?
Yes, I think so.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
