On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 11:08 AM Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> On 5/2/22 11:03, Richard Biener wrote:
> > In fact I think GCC is correct in its handling and LLVM would need to dup
> > () the
> > file descriptor. Was this issue raised with the LLVM folks?
>
> I don't know here.
>
> > I suspect the BFD
> > linker will also not work with LLVM due to this?
>
> I'm not sure BFD is supported by LLVM:
> https://llvm.org/docs/GoldPlugin.html
>
> They explicitly name it Gold plugin.
BFD does
if (plugin_call_claim_file (&file, &claimed))
einfo (_("%F%P: %s: plugin reported error claiming file\n"),
plugin_error_plugin ());
if (input->fd != -1
&& (!claimed || !bfd_plugin_target_p (ibfd->xvec)))
{
/* FIXME: fd belongs to us, not the plugin. GCC plugin, which
doesn't need fd after plugin_call_claim_file, doesn't use
BFD plugin target vector. Since GCC plugin doesn't call
release_input_file, we close it here. LLVM plugin, which
needs fd after plugin_call_claim_file and calls
release_input_file after it is done, uses BFD plugin target
vector. This scheme doesn't work when a plugin needs fd and
doesn't use BFD plugin target vector neither. */
release_plugin_file_descriptor (input);
}
so it knows about the problem. The above suggests that the plugin
could set ->fd to -1 ...
Richard.
>
> Martin
>
