On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 11:52 PM Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 7:54 PM H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 9:59 AM Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/28/2022 10:27 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 9:10 AM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches > > > > <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > > >> As I mentioned in the original thread, my change to pr94157_0 was an > > > >> attempt to avoid these warnings by passing a magic flag to the linker. > > > >> Of course we may not be using GNU ld. Or we may be on a non-elf target > > > >> where the flag I used doesn't exist. Or we may even be on a ELF target > > > >> where those bits weren't added to the linker (frv). Furthermore, we > > > >> need fixes to all the nested function tests as well. > > > >> > > > >> So even though I initially resisted pruning the warning, that seems > > > >> like > > > >> the best course of action. So this patch removes my recent change to > > > >> pr94157_0 and instead uses our pruning facilities. > > > >> > > > >> I'll be pushing this to the trunk and gcc-12 branch. > > > >> > > > > Can you backport it to other release branches? > > > I wasn't planning to, but can if the RMs want it. > > > jeff > > > > Hi Jakub, Ricard, > > > > Is it OK to backport the new linker support to GCC 11 and > > GCC 10 branches? > > It's OK if no problems have been reported for a while. > > Thanks, > Richard.
I am backporting it now. Thanks. -- H.J.
