Jack Howarth <howa...@bromo.med.uc.edu> writes: > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:53:59AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> Jack Howarth <howa...@bromo.med.uc.edu> writes: >> >> > So lto-object.c needs a rewrite to use only a single section for GNU_LTO >> > with subsections. >> > Unfortunately I can't find any documentation for using subsections in >> > mach-o which may imply we will >> > be forced to use an elf container to obtain those, no? >> >> We can format the information in the section any way we like. No reason >> to fix on subsections or on ELF, though both are certainly options. The >> important characteristics are: 1) the Mach-O assembler has to accept it; >> 2) the simple-object interface in libiberty has to read it. >> >> Ian > > Ian, > Are there any places in the current gcc sources which would give us > examples > of using the simple-object interface of libiberty in a manner similar to what > we > need for storing the lto data in the mach-o section? Or perhaps in an older > FSF > gcc release?
I think you are overthinking this. What LTO needs to do is really simple: store byte sequences with names. Anything which lets you do that will work. You need to write it out in a way that the assembler will accept; simple-object is not involved at that point. And you need to modify simple-object to read it. And then you need to modify simple-object to write it, for the plugin to use. Ian
