http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50237
--- Comment #24 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE> 2011-11-23 15:27:22 UTC ---
> --- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> 2011-11-22 18:03:09
> UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #22)
>> But this is the common case: you cannot expect or require the bootstrap
>> compiler to use the same linker as you configure with. This is a
>> bootstrap failure which is going to get us much noise if not fixed.
>>
>
> Have you tried the patch in comment 18?
Not yet, but I'm pretty sure it's wrong: In stage 1, the bootstrap
compiler needn't be gcc, thus may not understand -B, so the result would
be wrong even if you configure with gld 2.22. I don't understand why
you go through so many contortions, full of unwarranted assumptions,
when a simple check for gld >= 2.22 (or 2.21.9x if absolutely necessary)
would do. If other linkers gain the same support, the test can be
augmented accordingly. I know this is ugly and real feature checks are
the preferred way, but they are notoriously hard to get right portably,
so many of them already go this route.
Rainer
