Re: [arch-general] Changing compilation flags
I just looked into it and created simple patch. Anyone could test it and/or submit upstream?
Index: include/clang/Driver/Options.td
--- include/clang/Driver/Options.td
+++ include/clang/Driver/Options.td
@@ -2497,6 +2497,7 @@
defm non_call_exceptions : BooleanFFlag<"non-call-exceptions">, Group
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [arch-dev-public] Changing compilation flags From: arch-dev-public@archlinux.org To: Evangelos Foutras
Daniel Micay , Public mailing list for Arch Linux development So I think it would be a good idea to flip the default to -z,now in the linker if we"re going to use -fno-plt. I think they"d take a patch for that upstream. Clang issue could be avoided with a 1 line patch adding another no-op flag and they"d take that upstream. It"s harmless to use the slower lazy linking calling convention when -fno-plt is passed. This is literally just +1 LOC for Clang b/c it has a system for adding no-op flags already, which is mostly used for GCC compatibility. It even uses it in cases that are quite dubious like making -fstack- check into a no-op, despite it not just being an optional optimization / code generation change like -fno-plt.
participants (1)
-
Jordan Glover