Note I rather see split stack support than ld -r LTO support done. I think most enterprise folks would too.
Thanks, Andrew -----Original Message----- From: linaro-toolchain [mailto:linaro-toolchain-boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of Nicolas Pitre Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 9:41 AM To: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zane...@linaro.org> Cc: Jim Wilson <jim.wil...@linaro.org>; Linaro Toolchain Mailman List <linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org> Subject: Re: mixed LTO support for 'ld -r' On Wed, 23 Dec 2015, Adhemerval Zanella wrote: > > > > Em 22 de dez de 2015, às 14:22, Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pi...@linaro.org> > > escreveu: > > > >> On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, Jim Wilson wrote: > >> > >> I tracked the bulk of the patch back to April 2011, though some new > >> LTO related testsuite changes date back to January 2011. The > >> initial patch submission for the bulk of the patch appears to be > >> https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2011-04/msg00275.html > >> It is a large patch, and HJ had to update it twice in the next 24 > >> hours to fix problems with it. The size would have discouraged an > >> immediate review. And the fact that it was updated twice in 24 > >> hours after posting would have discouraged reviewers even more. > > > > Multiple revisions in a few days isn't uncommon. But 5 years have > > passed at this point. > > > >> People were perhaps waiting for the final version of the patch > >> before trying to review it, and then accidentally forgot about it > >> along the way. I don't see any discussion of the patch at the > >> time. And I haven't seen any attempt to resubmit it, though I > >> could have missed something. > >> > >> I see that the issue was discussed earlier in December 2010. HJ > >> made a proposal for a fix, and there was feedback at that time. > >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-12/msg00229.html > >> it looks like there were 3 separate related threads which may have > >> confused the issue a bit. > >> https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2010-12/msg00012.html > >> https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2010-12/msg00182.html > >> https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2010-12/msg00231.html > >> > >> Anyways, the size of the patch suggests using caution and waiting > >> for upstream review. Though I did find a reference that suggests > >> Fedora is using it > >> > >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/scm-commits/Week-of-Mon-2 > >> 0130513/1022584.html which suggests that it may be well tested. > >> This was done by Nick Clifton, who is one of the binutils > >> maintainers, so maybe we just need someone to ask about the status > >> of the patch on the binutils mailing list to remind people that it > >> still needs to be reviewed for the upstream FSF binutils tree. > > > > Could you (i.e. someone in the toolchain team) take care of this? > > I will sort this out when I get back from holidays. Great, thank you. Nicolas _______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
