On Wed, 6 Nov 2019, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Nov 4, 2019, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote:
>
> > I wonder why we shouldn't simply adjust aux_base_name to something
> > else for -flto [in the driver].
>
> About that, having tried to make sense of the current uses of
> aux_base_name and of lto-wrapper, three main possibilities occur to me:
>
> a) adjust the driver code to accept -auxbase, and have lto-wrapper
> explicitly pass -aux-base ${output_dir-.}/$(lbasename ${output_name}) or
> somesuch for each -fltrans command;
>
> b) introduce -auxdir and get lto-wrapper to pass -auxdir ${output_dir-.}
> for each -fltrans (and offload) command; or
>
> c) get -fltrans to implicitly adjust aux_base_name with the directory
> passed to -dumpdir, if any, or . otherwise
>
> Any preferences?
A simple test shows we currently only pass -auxbase-strip /tmp/cc...o
to the LTRANS lto1 invocation plus -dumpbase cc...o
Even with -save-temps this doesn't "improve" unless you have an
explicit output via -o
So isn't one of the main issues that the naming of the auxiliar
files is based on some "temporary" file? IMHO those should always
behave like if we passed -save-temps but I'm not sure how to achieve
that. For example -dumpdir and -dumpbase seem to work like this
already so there must be code somewhere doing this and adjusting
-auxbase[-strip] to work the same way would make sense to me.
Doesn't really solve the case for "no output name given" (aka a.out
default) though - I suppose for dumping and auxiliar file naming
purpose we should simply assume -o a.out there?
Thanks,
Richard.
