http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48245
--- Comment #23 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> 2011-03-28 11:11:09 UTC --- > --- Comment #20 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> > 2011-03-24 18:46:41 UTC --- >> AFAICT, comment #12 is OK on *-darwin9 including cross-cris-elf. >> given that Mike has approved, >> if someone could chip in with a test on x86-64-darwin10, I would think you >> could apply it. > > I have bootstrapped gcc on x86-64-darwin10 with the patch in comment #12 on > top > of revision 171401 without failures for the tests ran by lto.exp (full test by > tomorrow). Thanks. Based on Iain's and your testing and Mike's approval, I've applied the patch (slightly adapted to match the gcc.c form). > Now I wonder what are the tests > > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/lto/20100722-1_0.c > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/lto/20110201-1_0.c > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/lto/pr46940_0.c > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/lto/pr47188_0.c > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr43157.c > > supposed to test? pr46940_0.c fails because "only weak aliases are supported" > on darwin and the other tests pass even without plugin support. No idea. You'll have to ask the patch authors. This whole LTO and lto-plugin business remains a mystery to me. Rainer