On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> wrote: > Dave Korn <dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On 04/12/2010 01:24, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >>> I checked in a patch to implement stage 2 linking. Everything >>> seems to work, including "gcc -static ... -lm". >> >> Any chance you could send a complete diff? > > I just want to note that I continue to think this is a really bad idea, > and that we can easily fix the problems without going down this route. > > Also, if we do decide to go this route for some reason I can not > currently fathom, we should completely revamp the plugin interface to > make it much simpler.
The current API works OK with 2 stage BFD linker. My 2 stage BFD linker works with unmodified GCC 4.6. I will try to get it into binutils. Gold and ld can have different strategies for LTO plugin support as long as the same GCC driver binary works with both gold and ld binaries. > Any timing comparisons for working cases? > Here are timings to link GCC 4.6 cc1 on Core i7 870 2.93GHz: a. 1 stage linking: 409.94s user 5.48s system 99% cpu 6:58.88 total b. 2 stage linking: 410.08s user 5.53s system 98% cpu 7:00.00 total It isn't a real surprise since most times are spent in LTO plugin. Thanks. -- H.J.
