[Bug binutils/21479] strip doesn't handle lto archives

2025-05-14 Thread sam at gentoo dot org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz

[Bug binutils/21479] strip doesn't handle lto archives

2025-05-14 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug binutils/21479] strip doesn't handle lto archives

2025-05-14 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479 --- Comment #17 from Sourceware Commits --- The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=23e60b094692e5964882042deb4d58362d82626d commit 23e60b094692e5964882042deb4d58362d82626d A

[Bug binutils/21479] strip doesn't handle lto archives

2025-05-14 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479 --- Comment #16 from Sourceware Commits --- The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=717a38e9a02109fcbcb18bb2ec3aa251e2ad0a0d commit 717a38e9a02109fcbcb18bb2ec3aa251e2ad0a0d A

[Bug binutils/21479] strip doesn't handle lto archives

2025-05-13 Thread sam at gentoo dot org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479 --- Comment #15 from Sam James --- I noticed earlier: ``` Executing on host: sh -c {x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -B/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/binutils-/work/build/ld/tmpdir/ld/ -I/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/binutils-/work/binutils/ld/testsu

[Bug binutils/21479] strip doesn't handle lto archives

2025-05-06 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479 --- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #13) > For the non-fat case, we get: > > a.c > ``` > extern void foo1(void); > void foo2(void) { foo1(); } > void foo3(void) {} > ``` > > b.c: > ``` > extern void foo2(void

[Bug binutils/21479] strip doesn't handle lto archives

2025-05-06 Thread sam at gentoo dot org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479 --- Comment #13 from Sam James --- For the non-fat case, we get: a.c ``` extern void foo1(void); void foo2(void) { foo1(); } void foo3(void) {} ``` b.c: ``` extern void foo2(void); extern void foo3(void); void foo1(void) { foo3(); } int main

[Bug binutils/21479] strip doesn't handle lto archives

2025-05-04 Thread sam at gentoo dot org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED --- Comment #12 from Sam James

[Bug binutils/21479] strip doesn't handle lto archives

2025-05-04 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #16068|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug binutils/21479] strip doesn't handle lto archives

2025-05-04 Thread sam at gentoo dot org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479 --- Comment #9 from Sam James --- It looks promising, thank you! Will play with it more today. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug binutils/21479] strip doesn't handle lto archives

2025-05-04 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #16067|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug binutils/21479] strip doesn't handle lto archives

2025-05-03 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #16066|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug binutils/21479] strip doesn't handle lto archives

2025-05-03 Thread sam at gentoo dot org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479 --- Comment #7 from Sam James --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #6) > > strip is trying to do the right thing, and the LTO plugin claims the whole > object, then -R can't do anything. --plugin=/dev/null doesn't help there > when we have

[Bug binutils/21479] strip doesn't handle lto archives

2025-05-03 Thread sam at gentoo dot org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479 --- Comment #6 from Sam James --- Thank you! So far, it looks good. I am testing more. A question: when strip has no plugin support (like in 2.44), `strip -R '.gnu.lto_*' -R '.gnu.debuglto_*' -N __gnu_lto_v1 a.o` where a.o is a fat LTO object

[Bug binutils/21479] strip doesn't handle lto archives

2025-05-03 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #16065|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug binutils/21479] strip doesn't handle lto archives

2025-05-03 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |2.45 -- You are receiving this mail becaus

[Bug binutils/21479] strip doesn't handle lto archives

2025-05-03 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #16064|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug binutils/21479] strip doesn't handle lto archives

2025-05-03 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |hjl.tools at gmail dot com

[Bug binutils/21479] strip doesn't handle lto archives

2025-05-03 Thread sam at gentoo dot org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- Comment #2

[Bug binutils/21479] strip doesn't handle lto archives

2023-08-07 Thread sam at gentoo dot org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sam at gentoo dot org -- You are receivi

[Bug binutils/21479] strip doesn't handle lto archives

2017-10-20 Thread nickc at redhat dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nickc at redhat dot com --- Comment #1