On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 05:32:32AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 12:50:44PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 5:46 PM, H.J. Lu <hongjiu...@intel.com> wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> >> > >> >> > r216964 disables bootstrap for libcc1 which exposed 2 things: >> >> > >> >> > 1. libcc1 isn't compiled with LTO even when GCC is configured with >> >> > "--with-build-config=bootstrap-lto". It may be intentional since >> >> > libcc1 is disabled for bootstrap. >> >> > 2. -fPIC isn't used to created libcc1.so, which is OK if libcc1 is >> >> > compiled with LTO which remembers PIC option. >> >> >> >> Why is this any special to LTO? If it is then it looks like a LTO >> >> (driver) issue to me? Why are we linking the pic libibterty into >> >> a non-pic libcc1? >> > >> > I admit I haven't tried LTO bootstrap, but from normal bootstrap logs, >> > libcc1 is built normally using libtool using -fPIC only, and linked into >> > libcc1.so.0.0.0 and libcc1plugin.so.0.0.0, and of course against the >> > pic/libiberty.a, because we need PIC code in the shared libraries. >> > So, I don't understand the change at all. >> > >> > Jakub >> >> This is the command line to build libcc1.la: > > Sure, but there was -fPIC used to compile all the *.o files that are being > linked into libcc1.so, so LTO should know that.
And it does. If not please file a bug with a smaller testcase than libcc1 and libiberty. Richard. > Jakub