On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 11:43 AM Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote: > > On 7/4/19 5:03 PM, David Edelsohn wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 10:38 AM Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote: > >> > >> Hi. > >> > >> Recently I've introduced a new .gnu.lto_.lto section that > >> is supposed to provide meta information about a LTO bytecode. > >> > >> As a further step, I'm planning to teach binutils about > >> existence of the section and I'll remove in the future > >> emission of __gnu_lto_slim and __gnu_lto_v1 symbols. > >> The former one is used by binutils to identify if > >> an object is a slim LTO object. The later one is currently > >> used only in gcc/collect2.c and was added by David's patch. > >> > >> My question is: Can we remove __gnu_lto_v1 right now and > >> XCOFF will use something similar to ELF (has_lto_section)? > >> Can you David help me with that please? > > > > LTO currently does not work on AIX. I added the __gnu_lto_v1 as a > > test. You can rip it out and XCOFF will follow a different path when > > implementing LTO. > > Great. Then I'm sending revert of the patch. > > Ready to be installed?
Okay. Thanks, David
