Sandra Loosemore <[email protected]> writes: > On 9/6/25 08:18, Sam James wrote: >> 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.) > > I agree, the other two patches are fine. I do have a minor nit about > the wording... > >>> --- 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 > > It would be less wordy and more direct to s/it is recommended to//. > OK to commit with that change.
Thanks! Will do (and exactly the kind of thing I was hoping for someone to observe). > > -Sandra sam
