"H.J. Lu" <hjl.to...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> wrote: >> "H.J. Lu" <hjl.to...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> I am not saying we should go with 2 stage linking. Just for clarification. >>> In 2 stage linking, the first stage only does symbol resolution. The >>> complete >>> linking starts at the second stage. So we don't do really complete relink >>> in 2 stage linking. >> >> Understood. But you still read and process all the symbols twice. It >> can be done if it must be done, but it would be significantly better to >> do something else if possible. >> > > Without 2 stage linking, which many compilers do for LTO, we will add hack > on top of hack. As Richard pointed out, we need at least > > -lc -lgcc -lm -lpthreads -lgcov and maybe libssp, libgomp, ... > > -lm is currently added by user, not GCC driver > > Pass-through is just a hack, not a solution.
But I just suggested a different approach, which as far as I can see solves the entire problem. Why not criticize that approach, rather than continusing to discuss -pass-through, which we agree is a hack? Ian
