https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559
--- Comment #20 from Rainer Emrich <rai...@emrich-ebersheim.de> ---
Kai,
(In reply to Kai Tietz from comment #18)
> Does the following patch fixes your problem?
>
> Index: lto-wrapper.c
> ===================================================================
> --- lto-wrapper.c (Revision 222269)
> +++ lto-wrapper.c (Arbeitskopie)
> @@ -934,7 +934,7 @@ run_gcc (unsigned argc, char *argv[])
> filename[p - argv[i]] = '\0';
> file_offset = (off_t) loffset;
> }
> - fd = open (argv[i], O_RDONLY);
> + fd = open (argv[i], O_RDONLY|O_BINARY);
> if (fd == -1)
> {
> lto_argv[lto_argc++] = argv[i];
the following as Matt suggested
Index: lto-wrapper.c
===================================================================
--- lto-wrapper.c (Revision 222611)
+++ lto-wrapper.c (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -934,7 +934,7 @@ run_gcc (unsigned argc, char *argv[])
filename[p - argv[i]] = '\0';
file_offset = (off_t) loffset;
}
- fd = open (argv[i], O_RDONLY);
+ fd = open (filename, O_RDONLY|O_BINARY);
if (fd == -1)
{
lto_argv[lto_argc++] = argv[i];
fixes the issue and not only this.
I did a full native x86_64-w64-mingw32 bootstrap for c,c++ and ran the
testsuite. A quick inspection shows that most lto failures are gone.
gcc-5.1.0
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes 106113
# of unexpected failures 1809
# of unexpected successes 20
# of expected failures 282
# of unresolved testcases 1242
# of unsupported tests 1940
gcc-5.1.1 revision 222611 patch applied
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes 108435
# of unexpected failures 839
# of unexpected successes 21
# of expected failures 283
# of unresolved testcases 21
# of unsupported tests 1907
I have to look at the related PRs still.
I can't test on Linux at the moment. Has somebody the time to do a regression
test for the patch on Linux? Kai?
