Re: link-time optimization

[Ralf Wildenhues]

[ dropped libtool@ ]

* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 05:33:44PM CEST:
> > Is there any harm in passing them to the linking step?
> 
> Yes.  Let me answer with a patch to add a FAQ and FAQ entry.
> OK to commit?

No more feedback, I've thus pushed this patch ...

>     Add FAQ, and FAQ entry for flags stripped at library link time.
>     
>     * doc/libtool.texi (FAQ, Stripped link flags): New nodes.
>     (Wrapper executables): Replace bug address with macro.
>     (Compile mode, Link mode): Document `-Wc,' and `-Xcompiler '
>     semantics better.
>     * libltdl/config/ltmain.m4sh (func_mode_link): Rewrite comment
>     for the flags that are passed through.
>     Prompted by reports from Simon Richter <address@hidden>,
>     Török Edwin <address@hidden> and
>     Åke Sandgren <address@hidden>.

> --- a/libltdl/config/ltmain.m4sh
> +++ b/libltdl/config/ltmain.m4sh
> @@ -4489,17 +4489,17 @@ func_mode_link ()
[...]
> +      # Flags to be passed through unchanged, with rationale:
> +      # -64, -mips[0-9]      enable 64-bit mode for the SGI compiler
> +      # -r[0-9][0-9]*        specify processor for the SGI compiler
> +      # -xarch=*, -xtarget=* enable 64-bit mode for the Sun compiler
> +      # +DA*, +DD*           enable 64-bit mode for the HP compiler
> +      # -q*                  compiler args for the IBM compiler
> +      # -m*, -t[45]*, -txscale* architecture-specific flags for GCC
> +      # -F/path              path to uninstalled frameworks, gcc on darwin
> +      # -p, -pg, --coverage, -fprofile-*  profiling flag for GCC

... after fixing this typo s/flag/flags/

> +      # @file                GCC response files
> +      # -tp=*                Portland pgcc target processor selection

Support for -flto hopefully to come this weekend.