I agree with H-P.
The attached patch implements that. Tested that it is ignored by cc1
and not passed to the linker. OK with a CL entry if bootstrap finishes
OK?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery
Cheers,
--
Rafael Ávila de Espíndola
diff --git a/gcc/common.opt b/gcc/common.opt
index
Rafael Espindola espind...@google.com writes:
diff --git a/gcc/common.opt b/gcc/common.opt
index b57234a..9e4cf12 100644
--- a/gcc/common.opt
+++ b/gcc/common.opt
@@ -1391,6 +1391,11 @@ funwind-tables
Common Report Var(flag_unwind_tables) Optimization
Just generate unwind tables for
Andreas Schwab sch...@redhat.com writes:
Rafael Espindola espind...@google.com writes:
diff --git a/gcc/common.opt b/gcc/common.opt
index b57234a..9e4cf12 100644
--- a/gcc/common.opt
+++ b/gcc/common.opt
@@ -1391,6 +1391,11 @@ funwind-tables
Common Report Var(flag_unwind_tables)
Perhaps this should be an Undocumented option. I don't think you need a
Var anyway.
Without the Var it fails with
cc1: internal compiler error: in common_handle_option, at opts.c:2108
The attached patch changes the option to Undocumented.
Andreas.
Cheers,
--
Rafael Ávila de Espíndola
Without the Var it fails with
cc1: internal compiler error: in common_handle_option, at opts.c:2108
Which can also be fixed by explicitly ignoring
OPT_fuse_linker_plugin. The attached patch does that. Any preferences?
Cheers,
--
Rafael Ávila de Espíndola
diff --git a/gcc/common.opt
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 27, 2009, at 10:13 AM, Rafael Espindola espind...@google.com
wrote:
Perhaps this should be an Undocumented option. I don't think you
need a
Var anyway.
Without the Var it fails with
cc1: internal compiler error: in common_handle_option, at opts.c:2108
Then what about adding to that switch statement that it is already handled
by the specs?
That is what the last version does.
Cheers,
--
Rafael Ávila de Espíndola
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com writes:
I was just wondering why this is not a -f* flag, e.g. -fuse-linker-plugin?
Any opinions on the best user interface for this?
The color that spells -fuse-linker-plugin seems better, in line
with other
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 06:10:06PM -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com writes:
I was just wondering why this is not a -f* flag, e.g. -fuse-linker-plugin?
Any opinions on the best user interface for this?
The
2009/10/23 Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com:
I noticed that the -use-linker-plugin option seems to be passed to the
linker. This is because LINK_COMMAND_SPEC includes %{u*}. And that
is because -uSYMBOL is a documented linker option.
The effect is that the linker creates an undefined
I noticed that the -use-linker-plugin option seems to be passed to the
linker. This is because LINK_COMMAND_SPEC includes %{u*}. And that
is because -uSYMBOL is a documented linker option.
The effect is that the linker creates an undefined reference to the
symbol se-linker-plugin. Any user
Working on it.
The attached patch solves the problem. It is not very elegant to
remove -use-linker-plugin from the command line, but it is not used after
linking.
2009-10-23 Rafael Avila de Espindola espind...@google.com
* gcc.c (LINK_COMMAND_SPEC): Remove -use-linker-plugin
Rafael Espindola espind...@google.com writes:
2009-10-23 Rafael Avila de Espindola espind...@google.com
* gcc.c (LINK_COMMAND_SPEC): Remove -use-linker-plugin from the command
line.
This is OK if it passes bootstrap and if nobody objects in 24 hours.
Thanks.
Ian
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Rafael Espindola espind...@google.com writes:
2009-10-23 Rafael Avila de Espindola espind...@google.com
* gcc.c (LINK_COMMAND_SPEC): Remove -use-linker-plugin from the command
line.
This is OK if it
Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Rafael Espindola espind...@google.com writes:
2009-10-23 Rafael Avila de Espindola espind...@google.com
* gcc.c (LINK_COMMAND_SPEC): Remove -use-linker-plugin from
I thought about that too, but a -f flag would be passed to the
middle-end, where it does not make any sense. We could make it a -f
flag anyhow, of course, and just explicitly ignore it in the
middle-end.
Any opinions on the best user interface for this?
From an user interface point of view
16 matches
Mail list logo