On 03/29/2018 02:56 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote:
Hi.

I'm sending couple of documentation tweaks that touch LTO, binutils
auto-load plugin
support and valid options of -march (on x86-64).

@@ -9482,6 +9482,9 @@ types of hosts.  The bytecode files are
versioned and there is a
  strict version check, so bytecode files generated in one version of
  GCC do not work with an older or newer version of GCC.

+Link-time optimization on ELF/DWARF systems works with generation of debugging
+information.  Other systems are currently not supported.
+
  Link-time optimization does not work well with generation of debugging
  information.  Combining @option{-flto} with
  @option{-g} is currently experimental and expected to produce unexpected

this just adds to the current warning which doesn't look too useful.

Maybe simply

Index: doc/invoke.texi
===================================================================
--- doc/invoke.texi     (revision 258915)
+++ doc/invoke.texi     (working copy)
@@ -9483,9 +9483,8 @@ strict version check, so bytecode files
  GCC do not work with an older or newer version of GCC.

  Link-time optimization does not work well with generation of debugging
-information.  Combining @option{-flto} with
-@option{-g} is currently experimental and expected to produce unexpected
-results.
+information on systems other than those using a combination of ELF and
+DWARF.

  If you specify the optional @var{n}, the optimization and code
  generation done at link time is executed in parallel using @var{n}

?

The other hunks look OK.

Richard.

Martin

gcc/ChangeLog:

2018-03-29  Martin Liska  <mli...@suse.cz>

         PR lto/84995.
         * doc/invoke.texi: Document how LTO works with debug info.
         Describe auto-load support of binutils.  Mention 'x86-64'
         as valid option value of -march option.
---
  gcc/doc/invoke.texi | 11 +++++++++++
  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)



Works for me, installed as r258953.

Thanks for the correction.
Martin

Reply via email to