https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84995
Bug ID: 84995
Summary: Documentation gcc-ar and gcc-ranlib vs
{libdir}/bfd-plugins
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dilyan.palauzov at aegee dot org
CC: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
While ar, ranlib and nm work with LTO, if the plugin is installed in
{libdir}/bfd-plugin, the gcc manual (Optimizing options) recommends the use of
gcc-ar and gcc-ranlib.
Why doesn't the manual recommend installing instead the plugin under
/bfd-plugin?
Providing that both gcc and clang offer LTO and provide linker plugins, none of
them installs by default the plugins under {libdir}/bfd-plugins, gcc recommends
the usage of gcc-ar/gcc-ranlib, clang installs instead clang-ar/clang-ranlib,
how are ./configure scripts supposed to be written in portable way to enable
LTO compilation?
If several gcc versions are installed on a system and hence
/usr/local/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/7.3.1/liblto_plugin.so.0.0.0 and
/usr/local/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/6.4.1/liblto_plugin.so.0.0.0
co-exist, will gcc-ar always use
/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/6.4.1/liblto_plugin.so.0.0.0, if the code is compiled
with x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc-6.4.1?
