GCC GO has not moved away from split stack.
I think GCC GO should be supported.
There are a few other items on the parity list before ld -r support is needed. Including inside the kernel.
-----Original Message----- From: Adhemerval Zanella [mailto:adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org] Sent: Monday, January 4, 2016 5:33 AM To: Pinski, Andrew Andrew.Pinski@caviumnetworks.com; Nicolas Pitre nicolas.pitre@linaro.org Cc: Jim Wilson jim.wilson@linaro.org; Linaro Toolchain Mailman List linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org Subject: Re: mixed LTO support for 'ld -r'
These are orthogonal requests, let's track them independently. Also, although I noticed s390 work to add split-stack support, my understanding is it is mainly aimed for go runtime support and current go moved *away* from split-stack [1]. Which are the current usercases aimed for split-stack support currently?
[1] http://tip.golang.org/doc/go1.4#runtime
On 23-12-2015 18:17, Pinski, Andrew wrote:
Note I rather see split stack support than ld -r LTO support done. I think most enterprise folks would too.
Thanks, Andrew
-----Original Message----- From: linaro-toolchain [mailto:linaro-toolchain-bounces@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of Nicolas Pitre Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 9:41 AM To: Adhemerval Zanella adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org Cc: Jim Wilson jim.wilson@linaro.org; Linaro Toolchain Mailman List linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org Subject: Re: mixed LTO support for 'ld -r'
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
Em 22 de dez de 2015, às 14:22, Nicolas Pitre nicolas.pitre@linaro.org escreveu:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, Jim Wilson wrote:
I tracked the bulk of the patch back to April 2011, though some new LTO related testsuite changes date back to January 2011. The initial patch submission for the bulk of the patch appears to be https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2011-04/msg00275.html It is a large patch, and HJ had to update it twice in the next 24 hours to fix problems with it. The size would have discouraged an immediate review. And the fact that it was updated twice in 24 hours after posting would have discouraged reviewers even more.
Multiple revisions in a few days isn't uncommon. But 5 years have passed at this point.
People were perhaps waiting for the final version of the patch before trying to review it, and then accidentally forgot about it along the way. I don't see any discussion of the patch at the time. And I haven't seen any attempt to resubmit it, though I could have missed something.
I see that the issue was discussed earlier in December 2010. HJ made a proposal for a fix, and there was feedback at that time. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-12/msg00229.html it looks like there were 3 separate related threads which may have confused the issue a bit. https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2010-12/msg00012.html https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2010-12/msg00182.html https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2010-12/msg00231.html
Anyways, the size of the patch suggests using caution and waiting for upstream review. Though I did find a reference that suggests Fedora is using it https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/scm-commits/Week-of-Mon-2 0130513/1022584.html which suggests that it may be well tested. This was done by Nick Clifton, who is one of the binutils maintainers, so maybe we just need someone to ask about the status of the patch on the binutils mailing list to remind people that it still needs to be reviewed for the upstream FSF binutils tree.
Could you (i.e. someone in the toolchain team) take care of this?
I will sort this out when I get back from holidays.
Great, thank you.
Nicolas