On December 17, 2019 9:43:26 PM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
wrote:
>Hi!
>
>big ? "-fno-pie" : "-fno-pie" doesn't make much sense, either we want
>to
>use big ? "-fno-PIE" : "-fno-pie", but as both mean the same thing, I
>think
>just using "-fno-pie" is good enough. + a few formatting nits and one
>comment typo.
>
>Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
Ok.
Richard.
>2019-12-17 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
>
> PR lto/92972
> * lto-wrapper.c (merge_and_complain): Use just "-fno-pie" instead of
> big ? "-fno-pie" : "-fno-pie". Formatting fixes. Fix comment typo.
>
>--- gcc/lto-wrapper.c.jj 2019-09-11 13:36:14.057264373 +0200
>+++ gcc/lto-wrapper.c 2019-12-17 12:28:36.135056568 +0100
>@@ -408,7 +408,7 @@ merge_and_complain (struct cl_decoded_op
> /* Merge PIC options:
> -fPIC + -fpic = -fpic
> -fPIC + -fno-pic = -fno-pic
>- -fpic/-fPIC + nothin = nothing.
>+ -fpic/-fPIC + nothing = nothing.
>It is a common mistake to mix few -fPIC compiled objects into otherwise
> non-PIC code. We do not want to build everything with PIC then.
>
>@@ -438,9 +438,10 @@ merge_and_complain (struct cl_decoded_op
> && pie_option->opt_index == OPT_fPIE;
> (*decoded_options)[j].opt_index = big ? OPT_fPIE : OPT_fpie;
> if (pie_option->value)
>- (*decoded_options)[j].canonical_option[0] = big ? "-fPIE" :
>"-fpie";
>+ (*decoded_options)[j].canonical_option[0]
>+ = big ? "-fPIE" : "-fpie";
> else
>- (*decoded_options)[j].canonical_option[0] = big ?
>"-fno-pie" : "-fno-pie";
>+ (*decoded_options)[j].canonical_option[0] = "-fno-pie";
> (*decoded_options)[j].value = pie_option->value;
> j++;
> }
>@@ -482,7 +483,7 @@ merge_and_complain (struct cl_decoded_op
> {
> (*decoded_options)[j].opt_index = OPT_fpie;
> (*decoded_options)[j].canonical_option[0]
>- = pic_option->value ? "-fpie" : "-fno-pie";
>+ = pic_option->value ? "-fpie" : "-fno-pie";
> }
> else if (!pic_option->value)
> (*decoded_options)[j].canonical_option[0] = "-fno-pie";
>
> Jakub
