On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 7:54 PM H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 9:59 AM Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 4/28/2022 10:27 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 9:10 AM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches > > > <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > >> As I mentioned in the original thread, my change to pr94157_0 was an > > >> attempt to avoid these warnings by passing a magic flag to the linker. > > >> Of course we may not be using GNU ld. Or we may be on a non-elf target > > >> where the flag I used doesn't exist. Or we may even be on a ELF target > > >> where those bits weren't added to the linker (frv). Furthermore, we > > >> need fixes to all the nested function tests as well. > > >> > > >> So even though I initially resisted pruning the warning, that seems like > > >> the best course of action. So this patch removes my recent change to > > >> pr94157_0 and instead uses our pruning facilities. > > >> > > >> I'll be pushing this to the trunk and gcc-12 branch. > > >> > > > Can you backport it to other release branches? > > I wasn't planning to, but can if the RMs want it. > > jeff > > Hi Jakub, Ricard, > > Is it OK to backport the new linker support to GCC 11 and > GCC 10 branches?
It's OK if no problems have been reported for a while. Thanks, Richard. > Thanks. > > -- > H.J.
