On 6/21/19 12:34 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote: > >> On 21 Jun 2019, at 11:28, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 at 11:22, Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote: >>> >>> On 6/20/19 9:53 PM, Richard Biener wrote: >>>> On June 20, 2019 5:09:55 PM GMT+02:00, "Martin Liška" <mli...@suse.cz> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On 6/20/19 4:21 PM, David Edelsohn wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 10:05 AM Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In order to not buffer stderr output in LTO mode, I would like to >>>>> remove >>>>>>> support for repo files (tlink). If I'm correctly it's only used by >>>>> AIX >>>>>>> target. Would it be possible to drop that for the future? Is it even >>>>>>> used? >>>>>> >>>>>> AIX currently does not support GCC LTO, but the hope was that GCC >>>>>> would not do anything to specifically inhibit that ability to >>>>>> eventually support that feature. AIX currently needs collect2. I >>>>>> guess that AIX could try to find another mechanism when it adds >>>>>> support. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, I'm fine with collect2. I'm more precisely asking about >>>>> read_report_files >>>>> that lives in tlink.c. If I understand correctly, it's parsing output >>>>> of linker >>>>> and tries to find template implementations in a .rpo files that live on >>>>> a disk. >>>>> That's a legacy functionality that I'm targeting to remove. >>>> >>>> IIRC -frepo also works on Linux? >>> >>> Heh, you are right ;). Is there are consumer of that infrastructure >>> or can we just drop it? >> >> Anybody using option 2 at >> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Template-Instantiation.html >> >> I have no idea if anybody is using that, but we should at least >> deprecate it instead of just dropping a documented option without >> warning. > > I should have been clearer about Darwin: > > collect2 is required because it wraps the calling of lto-wrapper and ld. > > FWIW Darwin also passes all the “-frepo” testcases, however, I’m not aware of > anyone actually > using case #2 from Jonathan’s post. > > So, AFAIK the tlink capability isn’t required for modern C++ on Darwin; but, > maybe deprecation is a > safer step.
Thank you for the information. Yes, I would be fine to deprecate that for GCC 10.1 Martin > > Iain >
