https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> ---
(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);
> extern void foo3(void);
> void foo1(void) { foo3(); }
> int main(void) { foo2(); }
> ```
>
> $ gcc -c -flto a.c
> $ ar cr a.a a.o
> $ gcc b.c a.a
> $ strip -R .gnu.lto_* -R .gnu.debuglto_* -N __gnu_lto_v1 a.a
> strip: stt1ROFT/a.o: plugin needed to handle lto object
The BFD may issue such a message in the following places:
archive.c: (_("%pB: plugin needed to handle lto object"),
archive.c: (_("%pB: plugin needed to handle lto object"),
elflink.c: (_("%pB: plugin needed to handle lto object"), abfd);
linker.c: (_("%pB: plugin needed to handle lto object"), abfd);
We can open a new bug report to improve the message after this bug has been
fixed.
> Maybe the message could be nicer or omitted even (don't think it serves much
> of a purpose, other than maybe informing people they're doing something
> stupid, as the archive which is non-fat is now useless).
>
> But this isn't a problem for me at all either. Current behaviour is fine.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
