[Bug lto/41079] Bootstrap comparison fails, collect2 links against lto archives

2009-08-24 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-24 15:33 --- Subject: Bug 41079 Author: rguenth Date: Mon Aug 24 15:33:35 2009 New Revision: 151057 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=151057 Log: 2009-08-24 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de PR

[Bug lto/41079] Bootstrap comparison fails, collect2 links against lto archives

2009-08-24 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-24 15:34 --- The bootstrap comparison issues have all been fixed. The lto sections appearing in the final executables have been dealt with in upstream ld following what gold does. Thus, fixed. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot

[Bug lto/41079] Bootstrap comparison fails, collect2 links against lto archives

2009-08-19 Thread bje at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from bje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-19 06:14 --- Confirmed. -- bje at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug lto/41079] Bootstrap comparison fails, collect2 links against lto archives

2009-08-16 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-16 12:47 --- The lto sections are because we link with the static libraries even if they contain lto sections. As the linker doesn't know about them they are not stripped either. I guess a linker script could help here ... or

[Bug lto/41079] Bootstrap comparison fails, collect2 links against lto archives

2009-08-16 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-16 17:13 --- Like forcing -Wl,-Tltoscript if using GNU ld with ltoscript being SECTIONS { /DISCARD/ : { *(.gnu.lto_*) } } INSERT BEFORE .text placing this in the std GCC private library path should be enough together with

[Bug lto/41079] Bootstrap comparison fails, collect2 links against lto archives

2009-08-16 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-16 18:42 --- With that added to BOOT_LDFLAGS the cc1 binaries compare ok (the comparison still fails as it only considers .o files which obviously differ). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41079