> Anyway, the problem here isn't that I particularly care about coming up > with some workaround to make LTO work, but rather that tests from the > gcc testsuite are failing on this target because of what looks like > buggy LTO behavior instead of bugs in the target support, and I wanted > to be sure this was being tracked somewhere. I didn't see a relevant > issue in either the gcc or binutils bugzillas, but if it's a known > consequence of the ld -r problem, I'll shut up and go away again. ;-)
AFAIK none of the test suite tests the ld -r problem, at least not on x86-linux. So it may be something else and still worth tracking down. -Andi -- a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
