On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Jun 28, 2012, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 04:16:55AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>> I'd very be surprised if I asked for an i686 native build to package and >>> install elsewhere, and didn't get a plugin just because the build-time >>> linker wouldn't have been able to run the plugin. > >> Not disable plugin support altogether, but disable assuming the linker >> supports the plugin. > > That still doesn't sound right to me: why should the compiler refrain > from using a perfectly functional linker plugin on the machine where > it's installed (not where it's built)? > > Also, this scenario of silently deciding whether or not to use the > linker plugin could bring us to different test results for the same > command lines. I don't like that.
I don't like that we derive the default setting this way either. In the end I would like us to arrive at the point that LTO does not work at all without a linker plugin. Richard. > -- > Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/ > You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi > Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member > Free Software Evangelist Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer
