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.
-Sandra
