> On 20 Aug 2018, at 23:38, Joseph Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 3 Aug 2018, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote: > >>> I think you're changing the wrong place for this. If you want -r to be >>> usable with GCC without using -nostdlib (which is an interesting >>> question), you actually need to change LINK_COMMAND_SPEC (also sometimes >>> overridden for targets) to handle -r more like -nostdlib -nostartfiles. >>> >> Okay, so like this? > > Could you confirm if this has passed a bootstrap and testsuite run, with > no testsuite regressions compared to GCC without the patch applied? I > think it looks mostly OK (modulo ChangeLog rewrites and a missing second > space after '.' in the manual change) but I'd like to make sure it's > passed the usual testing before preparing it for commit.
I have bootstrapped the Darwin part (several times now), I’d say it’s “correct by examination” and that if there’s test-suite fallout, that indicates a latent problem. (I don’t think there is - but the Darwin test output is rather noisy at the moment). But I think gcc/gcc.c patch is incomplete, since it doesn’t account for the VTABLE_VERIFICATION_SPEC, SANITIZER_EARLY_SPEC, SANITIZER_SPEC. How have you determined that the patch is doing what you expect? (it might be nice if there was some specific testsuite entry than makes sure this is working so that if people make a mistake in the future, it gets caught). === Joseph: As a side-comment, is there a reason that we don’t exclude gomp/itm/fortran/gcov from the link for -nostdlib / -nodefaultlib? If we are relying on the lib self-specs for this, then we’re not succeeding since the one we build at the moment don’t include those clauses. thanks Iain
