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.