On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:45:35PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:03:05AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:05:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > > > On 21.08.2010 14:56, Julien Cristau wrote: > > > >On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:33:12 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote: > > > > > > > >>Now, to be clear, what nice things would gcc-4.5 bring to our users? > > > >>There is a complete list here [0], but those ones are, in my opinion, > > > >>very nice: > > > >> - The new link time optimiser. > > > >> - Improved C++0x support. > > > >> - Plugins support. > > > >> > > > >My understanding is that lto in 4.5 is not quite there yet. Not that > > > >I've tried it or anything. > > > > > > I don't share your understanding. I tried it for some builds. > > > > Maybe it works on small things, but I heard it doesn't work very well > > for stuff like mozilla. 4.6 is supposed to get better. > > I'm certainly concerned about issues such as #593876 where the > stricter linking breaks existing code. I'm not sure about the > rationale for this extra strictness, but it does cause > unwanted breakage by breaking existing assumptions about > indirect linking.
Well, I think you can revert to the old behaviour using --add-needed (-Wl,--add-needed). But clearly, boost is wrong here, sadly. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madco...@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100823115136.gj1...@madism.org
