On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Bingfeng Mei <b...@broadcom.com> wrote: > Well, mixed LTO/non-LTO is quite useful. For example, we have mixed C/assembly > Application. Gold support for our target is still far away. I found > -fwhole-program > is very important for our size optimization.
True. Without symbol resolution information when using GNU ld it is hard to do anything reasonable though. How far has the idea of adding resolution output to GNU ld developed? Richard. > Bingfeng > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dave Korn [mailto:dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com] >> Sent: 11 June 2010 14:21 >> To: Richard Guenther >> Cc: Manuel López-Ibáñez; Bingfeng Mei; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Jan Hubicka >> Subject: Re: Issue with LTO/-fwhole-program >> >> On 11/06/2010 13:59, Richard Guenther wrote: >> >> > Well, we can't. We specifically support mixed LTO/non LTO objects >> > (think of shared libraries for example). With the linker-plugin and >> gold >> > we can do better, but with just GNU ld and collect2 we can't. >> >> Well then shouldn't we warn if -fwhole-program is used with mixed LTO >> and >> non-LTO objects? Or disable it, or both? >> >> cheers, >> DaveK > > >
