On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 05:45:52PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Jack Howarth <howa...@bromo.med.uc.edu>
> wrote:
> >> Err, well. I do not see how most of the code is OS specific
> >> anyway - there is _very_ little code in GCC that is OS specific.
> >>
> >> Richard.
> >
> > Richard,
> > Except for LTO (for which dragon-egg represents a way around
> > since we can use the llvm's libLTO with that).
>
> No, LTO is in fact not very OS specific at all. Just because your
> favorite platform isn't supported, does not mean that something in GCC
> is linux-specific. LTO works on all targets with ELF binaries, and
> patches exist to make it work with COFF binaries too. You could add
> MACH-O support, it shouldn't be very difficult to do if you can follow
> Dave's example.
>
> But instead you go to LLVM, which is, bottom line, not a solution for
> GCC -- and that's what this thread is all about to me.
I have opened PR43729, "MachO LTO support needed for darwin", to discuss
this. Can you point me at Dave's previous patches that added LTO-suppport
to a non-ELF platform? Also, I was unaware that this feat had been performed
on a target which both is non-ELF and non-binutils.
Jack
>
> Ciao!
> Steven
