Re: Update LTO plugin interface

[Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>]

Dave Korn <dave.korn.cygwin@gmail.com> writes:

> On 02/12/2010 20:10, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> Anyhow, I have a proposal on the table which I think can do the job.  If
>> you want to instead advocate for a complete relink approach, then we
>> should significantly change and simplify the plugin interface.  The
>> plugin support in gold will need to be rewritten; not sure about GNU ld.
>> I think that will force the linker to do a fair bit of extra work to no
>> useful purpose.
>
>   I'm wondering if the linker shouldn't just gather the plugin-contributed
> object files, substitute them into appropriate places on the original
> command-line, and re-exec itself.

We are we letting these small, solvable, problems head us toward a
solution which is much less efficient?  When we've already put a great
deal of work into making the more efficient solution work?

Ian