On 03/27/2014 02:31 PM, Ilya Verbin wrote:
+#ifdef ACCEL_COMPILER
+ /* Decls are placed in reversed order in fat-objects, so we need to
+ revert them back if we compile target. */
...
Actually this change is incorrect. If host binary is built with -flto, then
both host gcc and target gcc read decls from lto and target_lto sections in the
same order, and resulting tables are identical.
So, in this case there is no need to change the order.
But what if one wants to link non-lto host object files with a target image,
produced from target_lto sections?
In this case the order of host table, produced during ordinary compilation will
differ from the order of target table, produced during lto compilation.
I haven't looked into the ordering issue here (the reversing of the
order is from Michael's original patch), because I still think the whole
scheme can't work and I was intending to produce a testcase to
demonstrate that. Looks like you saved me some time here :)
My suggestion would be to augment the tables with the unique-name scheme
I posted previously. I think the objections against it were a little
exaggerated, and it would ensure reliability.
Bernd
