"H.J. Lu" <hjl.to...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> wrote: >> "H.J. Lu" <hjl.to...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> How do you deal with -lm: >> >> I believe we have agreed that LTO can only introduce new symbol >> references that are satisfied by -lc and -lgcc. Under those conditions, > > Have you looked my testcase? The assumption of "LTO can only > introduce new symbol references that are satisfied by -lc and -lgcc." > is wrong. My testcase shows LTO may introduce new symbol references > to libm.
You're right, I didn't fully grasp that the reference to sin in the source code was somehow being removed and then re-added. However, I really don't see why this is a serious flaw in my proposal. You have shown a case in which LTO can introduce a new symbol reference to -lm. So we just treat -lm as we do -lc and -lgcc. This is similar to how the g++ driver already treats -lm. It's a detail, not a major problem. A major problem would be if LTO could introduce a new symbol reference which required changing the way we search user defined archives. Ian
