Re: Any plans to integrate just binutils‑gd b into GCC?
unlvsur unlvsur via Gcc-help <[email protected]> Thu, 23 Jul 2026 10:22:07 +0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gcc.help,gmane.comp.gnu.binutils |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <SJ1P223MB04354726AA46F015886A2155D6C02@SJ1P223MB0435.NAMP223.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> |
the problem is that doing so requires modifying both gcc and binutils. binutils does not provide a lot of tool (such as dlltool) for x86_64-w64-mingw32, unlike llvm all tools are available. Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> ________________________________ From: Arsen Arsenović <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2026 6:16:55 PM To: unlvsur unlvsur <[email protected]> Cc: Segher Boessenkool <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Any plans to integrate just binutils‑gdb into GCC? unlvsur unlvsur via Gcc-help <[email protected]> writes: > LLVM/Clang generates LLVM IR, not necessarily object files. Also thin > lto works very well for clang and llvm while for GCC to use lto, the > compilation is extremely slow to the point of useless. No it isn't. GCC LTO is applied widely. My entire system is built with GCC + -flto. > BTW, supporting --sysroot --target does not mean $target-gcc couldn't exist any more for those legacy systems. It is just for new system, we should move to just gcc --target --sysroot, not $cross-gcc Patches welcome. -- Arsen Arsenović