> It sounds to me like this confusion comes from "LTO plugins". Isn't
> it just "LTO plugin"? That is, a specific plugin?
There is one GCC plugin. LLVM has another one. The fully qualified
name is probably something like "gold plugin for gcc lto".
> --
> Daniel Jacobowitz
> CodeSourcery
>
Chee
Diego Novillo writes:
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 10:34, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 04:29:29PM +0200, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
>>> I suppose LTO plugins means plugin dlopen-ed in lto-plugin/lto-symtab.c
>>
>> It sounds to me like this confusion comes from "LTO plugins".
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 10:34, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 04:29:29PM +0200, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
>> I suppose LTO plugins means plugin dlopen-ed in lto-plugin/lto-symtab.c
>
> It sounds to me like this confusion comes from "LTO plugins". Isn't
> it just "LTO plugin"?
On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 04:29:29PM +0200, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
> I suppose LTO plugins means plugin dlopen-ed in lto-plugin/lto-symtab.c
It sounds to me like this confusion comes from "LTO plugins". Isn't
it just "LTO plugin"? That is, a specific plugin?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcer
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 10:29, Basile STARYNKEVITCH
wrote:
> I suppose LTO plugins means plugin dlopen-ed in lto-plugin/lto-symtab.c
No, it does not mean that. As I said already, these are plugins for
gold, the linker. It is gold the one that uses it.
Diego.
Diego Novillo wrote:
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 10:10, Basile STARYNKEVITCH
wrote:
Then I would imagine it requires a copyright transfer to FSF different of
the one covering GCC development. The legal document covering my
contribution cites specifically GCC (not binutils).
Getting that copyright
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 10:12, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Diego Novillo writes:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 09:55, Basile STARYNKEVITCH
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Are LTO plugins fondamentally different from others, non LTO plugins?
>>
>> Yes, it should be probably be named 'linker' plugins. It's a plugin
Diego Novillo writes:
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 09:55, Basile STARYNKEVITCH
> wrote:
>
>> Are LTO plugins fondamentally different from others, non LTO plugins?
>
> Yes, it should be probably be named 'linker' plugins. It's a plugin
> for gold to allow extraction of individual .o files out of sta
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 10:10, Basile STARYNKEVITCH
wrote:
> Then I would imagine it requires a copyright transfer to FSF different of
> the one covering GCC development. The legal document covering my
> contribution cites specifically GCC (not binutils).
>
> Getting that copyright transfer signed
On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, David Edelsohn wrote:
> I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has
> appointed Diego Novillo, Rafael Avila de Espindola, and Richard Guenther
> as LTO Reviewers, and Rafael Avila de Espindola and Cary Coutant as
> LTO Plugin Reviewers.
>
> Thanks
Diego Novillo wrote:
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 09:55, Basile STARYNKEVITCH
wrote:
Are LTO plugins fondamentally different from others, non LTO plugins?
Yes, it should be probably be named 'linker' plugins. It's a plugin
for gold to allow extraction of individual .o files out of static
archives
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 09:55, Basile STARYNKEVITCH
wrote:
> Are LTO plugins fondamentally different from others, non LTO plugins?
Yes, it should be probably be named 'linker' plugins. It's a plugin
for gold to allow extraction of individual .o files out of static
archives during LTO compiles.
David Edelsohn wrote:
I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has
appointed Diego Novillo, Rafael Avila de Espindola, and Richard Guenther
as LTO Reviewers, and Rafael Avila de Espindola and Cary Coutant as
LTO Plugin Reviewers.
Sorry, but what exactly are LTO plugins?
13 matches
Mail list logo
