On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> wrote: > "H.J. Lu" <hjl.to...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> wrote: >>> Alan Modra <amo...@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 09:57:14AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: >>>>> Personally, I think 2 stage linking is one way to fix this issue. >>>> >>>> Ian has stated that he thinks this is a really bad idea. I haven't >>>> approved the patch because I value Ian's opinion, and can see why he >>>> thinks it is the wrong way to go. On the other hand, BFD is full of >>>> bad ideas.. I'm not strongly opposed to your patch myself. >>> >>> Why don't we spend a short amount of time fixing these relatively minor >>> issues in lto-plugin without going all the way to two-stage linking? >> >> The issues may be "relatively minor". But proper fix without >> two-stage linking may be quite tricky. > > I see no particular reason why that should be the case. The issues are > conceptually simple.
I'd like to a gold implementation which works on all known cases. -- H.J.
