On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 5:44 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 5:50 AM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 2:36 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
> > >
> > > obj.found is the number of LTO symbols. We should include the offload
> > > section when it is used by linker even if ther
On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 5:50 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 2:36 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
> >
> > obj.found is the number of LTO symbols. We should include the offload
> > section when it is used by linker even if there are no LTO symbols.
>
> OK.
>
> > PR lto/116361
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: H.J. Lu
> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2024 6:07 PM
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Prathamesh Kulkarni ;
> richard.guent...@gmail.com
> Subject: [PATCH] lto: Don't check obj.found for offload section
>
> External ema
On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 2:36 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> obj.found is the number of LTO symbols. We should include the offload
> section when it is used by linker even if there are no LTO symbols.
OK.
> PR lto/116361
> * lto-plugin.c (claim_file_handler_v2): Don't check obj.found
>
obj.found is the number of LTO symbols. We should include the offload
section when it is used by linker even if there are no LTO symbols.
PR lto/116361
* lto-plugin.c (claim_file_handler_v2): Don't check obj.found
for the offload section.
Signed-off-by: H.J. Lu
---
lto-
