https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559

--- Comment #22 from Kai Tietz <ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I will be able to test this tomorrow (or this evening) for a linux bootstrap.

Patch tested is:

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 (filename, O_RDONLY | O_BINARY);
       if (fd == -1)
        {
          lto_argv[lto_argc++] = argv[i];

Honza, Jakub, when regression-test passes is it ok to apply?
The O_BINARY change is pretty obvious, but the filename vs argv[i] change
should indeed affect other targets using the @<n> decoration, too.

Reply via email to