Am Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:01:35 -0600 schrieb Jeff Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Diego Novillo wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 15:40, Ollie Wild <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Diego Novillo > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> lto1 (even if -flto is not provided) and eventually we'll need to > >>> support archives in the reader. > >>> > >> Will we? I thought one of the main justifications for > >> implementing a plugin architecture in the linker was to avoid > >> having to do this in collect2. > >> > > > > Well, it will likely be needed to support GNU ld. I'm assuming that > > not everyone will use gold. Likewise, support for non-ELF > > architectures may need to be added at some point. > > > I'm not really involved in the LTO stuff at all, but my > recommendation would be to severely de-emphasize any non-ELF targets > -- to the point where I'd say LTO is only supported on ELF targets. > > Reality is there aren't too many non-ELF targets that matter anymore > and, IMHO, it's reasonable to demand ELF support for LTO. The only > other format that has a reasonable chance of working would be the > COFF variants anyway and the only COFF variant that is meaningful is > used by AIX (and perhaps Darwin?!?). s/COFF/PECOFF/ s/AIX/Windows/ presumably matters quite a bit more than AIX does, even if we don't like the corporation behind it.
