>From http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-09/msg02106.html
> You enable LTO by default if a suitable libelf is found. But what if > libelf is present but the target for which GCC is being configured is not > an ELF target? Presumably LTO will not work in that case (i.e., it > requires the target to be an ELF target rather than producing ELF files > separate from the normal objects for that target)? So shouldn't LTO be > disabled for non-ELF targets even when libelf is present? We discussed a > patch to do that back in May (e.g. > <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/msg01609.html>); what happened > to that? (On the whole I think a blacklist of targets that are (a) > supported by GCC and (b) not ELF is better than trying to list all ELF > targets. Certainly various ELF targets are missing from the list used to > set is_elf for --enable-gold.) -- Summary: LTO configuration should detect if the target is ELF Product: gcc Version: lto Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: lto AssignedTo: dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41529
