Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhni...@google.com> > wrote: >> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Joseph S. Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com> >> wrote: >>> On Mon, 9 May 2011, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>> >>>> Uhm, so we deadlocked, I thought the other way. I cannot really >>>> express any opinion about the desirability of the feature, but the >>>> configure syntax is certainly okay with me, and I gather from the >>>> thread that you are fine with that as well. >>> >>> Given the build system changes, the gcc.c changes are OK. >> >> Ok for trunk then? >> >> I'll wait till tomorrow in case someone has additional comments on the >> desirability part. > > I wonder why this is a GCC specific patch and not a linker patch. Why > not change the linker(s) to accept such configure option that changes its > default behavior?
It is traditionally gcc which tells the linker what to do. E.g., Fedora has patched gcc to pass --hash-style=gnu to the linker. > Otherwise if people link with ld they suddenly get different hash-style. > That looks wrong to me. That turns out not to be the case. Both gold and GNU ld accept the same set of --hash-style options. Ian
