On 2014.11.10 at 12:05 -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf > <mar...@trippelsdorf.de> wrote: > > On 2014.11.10 at 11:43 -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 02:44:55PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > >> >> >> > 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. > >> > > >> > Ah, supposedly we should add $(POSTSTAGE1_HOST_EXPORTS) after > >> > $(HOST_EXPORTS) > >> > to the libcc1 rules iff the libcc1 module is built by the newly built > >> > bootstrapped compiler (but not when the compiler is not bootstrapped and > >> > thus it is built by the host compiler), because if we first bootstrap the > >> > compiler and build libcc1 by stage3, it is really post-stage1 building. > >> > >> It doesn't help. The problem is the missing -fPIC when libtool calls > >> g+++ to create the shared object. My patch fixes it. > > > > But wouldn't it be better to update to a more recent libtool version > > instead of adding hack upon hack? > > Hack is safer than the newer libtool :-(. A new libtool needs to be > verified on all hosts for all targets.
Well, perhaps now is the right time to do it, because there would be enough time to fix any fallout. > > This would also allow bootstrap-lto without the need of the gcc-ar > > (, etc.) wrappers. > > > > And you are one of the very few persons who could handle such an update. > > > > What did you mean by "you"? I mean that since Ralf Wildenhues dropped from the scene, you (H.J.) are one of the few people who could handle a libtool update across the different trees (gcc, binutils, etc.). -- Markus
