Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> wrote:
>> Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Your small patch removing have_o || is ok I guess.
>>
>> Wait. That will change the behaviour of
>> gcc -o foo.o -c f1.c f2.c f3.c
>> Is that what we want?
>
> Does it? I don't think so. Most of the combine handling was removed by
> the patch that caused the regression, so -o and -c doesn't combine anymore
> (with multiple sources).
Sorry, you're right. The difference is that @c has 0 for the combinable
field, and @assembler has 1. Before H.J.'s change, this worked
gcc -c -o f.o f1.s f2.s
After his change, it does not. That is probably not a big deal.
I wonder why @assembler has 1 for combinable? It seems to have been set
to 1 when the combinable field was added in 2004-04-05 with -combine.
Now that -combine has been removed, if the combinable field for
@assembler were 0, it seems to me that H.J.'s problem would also be
fixed. And it seems to me that it should be 0.
>> Also, right now the gccgo driver depends on the -o behaviour to combine
>> inputs. If that changes, the driver will need to provide some other way
>> to let the frontend force inputs to be combined.
>
> For go it isn't equivalent to do gcgo -c t1.go; gcgo -c t2.go; gcgo t1.o t2.o
> compared to gcgo t1.go t2.go?
No, it is not. All .go input files must be passed to go1 at once.
H.J.'s patch has indeed broken gccgo.
Ian
