Sam James <[email protected]> writes:
> GNU Binutils now supports linking LTO and non-LTO objects into a single
> mixed object file as of 2.44. Update the text to reflect this and fix
> some minor grammar issues while at it.
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
> PR ipa/116410
>
> * doc/invoke.texi (Link Options): Update -flinker-output= text
> to reflect GNU Binutils changes. Fix grammar.
> ---
> OK?
(I consider the other two patches obvious, but wanted some feedback on
this phrasing. Also, added some extra CCs.)
>
> gcc/doc/invoke.texi | 13 ++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
> index c0b7aab11696..46b13abee98a 100644
> --- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
> +++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
> @@ -19450,13 +19450,12 @@ link-time optimizations disabled (for example,
> cross-module inlining
> happens), but most of benefits of whole program optimizations are lost.
>
> During the incremental link (by @option{-r}) the linker plugin defaults to
> -@option{rel}. With current interfaces to GNU Binutils it is however not
> -possible to incrementally link LTO objects and non-LTO objects into a single
> -mixed object file. If any of object files in incremental link cannot
> -be used for link-time optimization, the linker plugin issues a warning and
> -uses @samp{nolto-rel}. To maintain whole program optimization, it is
> -recommended to link such objects into static library instead. Alternatively
> it
> -is possible to use H.J. Lu's binutils with support for mixed objects.
> +@option{rel}. GNU Binutils 2.44 or later is needed to incrementally link
> +LTO objects and non-LTO objects into a single mixed object file. If any
> +of the object files in an incremental link cannot be used for link-time
> +optimization, the linker plugin issues a warning and uses @samp{nolto-rel}.
> +To maintain whole program optimization, it is recommended to link such
> objects
> +into a static library instead.
>
> @opindex fuse-ld=bfd
> @item -fuse-ld=bfd
