Hi!
big ? "-fno-pie" : "-fno-pie" doesn't make much sense, either we want to
use big ? "-fno-PIE" : "-fno-pie", but as both mean the same thing, I think
just using "-fno-pie" is good enough. + a few formatting nits and one
comment typo.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
2019-12-17 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
PR lto/92972
* lto-wrapper.c (merge_and_complain): Use just "-fno-pie" instead of
big ? "-fno-pie" : "-fno-pie". Formatting fixes. Fix comment typo.
--- gcc/lto-wrapper.c.jj 2019-09-11 13:36:14.057264373 +0200
+++ gcc/lto-wrapper.c 2019-12-17 12:28:36.135056568 +0100
@@ -408,7 +408,7 @@ merge_and_complain (struct cl_decoded_op
/* Merge PIC options:
-fPIC + -fpic = -fpic
-fPIC + -fno-pic = -fno-pic
- -fpic/-fPIC + nothin = nothing.
+ -fpic/-fPIC + nothing = nothing.
It is a common mistake to mix few -fPIC compiled objects into otherwise
non-PIC code. We do not want to build everything with PIC then.
@@ -438,9 +438,10 @@ merge_and_complain (struct cl_decoded_op
&& pie_option->opt_index == OPT_fPIE;
(*decoded_options)[j].opt_index = big ? OPT_fPIE : OPT_fpie;
if (pie_option->value)
- (*decoded_options)[j].canonical_option[0] = big ? "-fPIE" :
"-fpie";
+ (*decoded_options)[j].canonical_option[0]
+ = big ? "-fPIE" : "-fpie";
else
- (*decoded_options)[j].canonical_option[0] = big ? "-fno-pie"
: "-fno-pie";
+ (*decoded_options)[j].canonical_option[0] = "-fno-pie";
(*decoded_options)[j].value = pie_option->value;
j++;
}
@@ -482,7 +483,7 @@ merge_and_complain (struct cl_decoded_op
{
(*decoded_options)[j].opt_index = OPT_fpie;
(*decoded_options)[j].canonical_option[0]
- = pic_option->value ? "-fpie" : "-fno-pie";
+ = pic_option->value ? "-fpie" : "-fno-pie";
}
else if (!pic_option->value)
(*decoded_options)[j].canonical_option[0] = "-fno-pie";
Jakub
