On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf <mar...@trippelsdorf.de> wrote: > On 2014.11.10 at 11:43 -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 02:44:55PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> >> > I admit I haven't tried LTO bootstrap, but from normal bootstrap >> >> >> > logs, >> >> >> > libcc1 is built normally using libtool using -fPIC only, and linked >> >> >> > into >> >> >> > libcc1.so.0.0.0 and libcc1plugin.so.0.0.0, and of course against the >> >> >> > pic/libiberty.a, because we need PIC code in the shared libraries. >> >> >> > So, I don't understand the change at all. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Jakub >> >> >> >> >> >> This is the command line to build libcc1.la: >> >> > >> >> > Sure, but there was -fPIC used to compile all the *.o files that are >> >> > being >> >> > linked into libcc1.so, so LTO should know that. >> >> >> >> And it does. If not please file a bug with a smaller testcase than libcc1 >> >> and libiberty. >> > >> > Ah, supposedly we should add $(POSTSTAGE1_HOST_EXPORTS) after >> > $(HOST_EXPORTS) >> > to the libcc1 rules iff the libcc1 module is built by the newly built >> > bootstrapped compiler (but not when the compiler is not bootstrapped and >> > thus it is built by the host compiler), because if we first bootstrap the >> > compiler and build libcc1 by stage3, it is really post-stage1 building. >> >> It doesn't help. The problem is the missing -fPIC when libtool calls >> g+++ to create the shared object. My patch fixes it. > > But wouldn't it be better to update to a more recent libtool version > instead of adding hack upon hack?
Hack is safer than the newer libtool :-(. A new libtool needs to be verified on all hosts for all targets. > This would also allow bootstrap-lto without the need of the gcc-ar > (, etc.) wrappers. > > And you are one of the very few persons who could handle such an update. > What did you mean by "you"? -- H.J.
