http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50237
--- Comment #25 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> 2011-11-23 16:42:43 UTC --- (In reply to comment #24) > > --- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> 2011-11-22 > > 18:03:09 UTC --- > > (In reply to comment #22) > >> But this is the common case: you cannot expect or require the bootstrap > >> compiler to use the same linker as you configure with. This is a > >> bootstrap failure which is going to get us much noise if not fixed. > >> > > > > Have you tried the patch in comment 18? > > Not yet, but I'm pretty sure it's wrong: In stage 1, the bootstrap > compiler needn't be gcc, thus may not understand -B, so the result would > be wrong even if you configure with gld 2.22. I don't understand why > you go through so many contortions, full of unwarranted assumptions, > when a simple check for gld >= 2.22 (or 2.21.9x if absolutely necessary) > would do. If other linkers gain the same support, the test can be > augmented accordingly. I know this is ugly and real feature checks are > the preferred way, but they are notoriously hard to get right portably, > so many of them already go this route. > Checking linker version is inaccurate since this feature requires support in assembler, linker as well as libc. We can disable it by' default when 2 linkers are used.
