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<clang_ignored_f_Group>; defm peel_loops : BooleanFFlag<"peel-loops">, Group<clang_ignored_gcc_optimization_f_Group>; defm permissive : BooleanFFlag<"permissive">, Group<clang_ignored_f_Group>; +defm plt : BooleanFFlag<"plt">, Group<clang_ignored_f_Group>; defm prefetch_loop_arrays : BooleanFFlag<"prefetch-loop-arrays">, Group<clang_ignored_gcc_optimization_f_Group>; defm printf : BooleanFFlag<"printf">, Group<clang_ignored_f_Group>; defm profile : BooleanFFlag<"profile">, Group<clang_ignored_f_Group>; Index: test/Driver/clang_f_opts.c --- test/Driver/clang_f_opts.c +++ test/Driver/clang_f_opts.c @@ -275,12 +275,14 @@ // RUN: -fno-fat-lto-objects -ffat-lto-objects \ // RUN: -fno-merge-constants -fmerge-constants \ // RUN: -fno-caller-saves -fcaller-saves \ +// RUN: -fno-plt \ // RUN: -fno-reorder-blocks -freorder-blocks \ // RUN: -fno-schedule-insns2 -fschedule-insns2 \ // RUN: -fno-stack-check \ // RUN: -fno-check-new -fcheck-new \ // RUN: -ffriend-injection \ // RUN: -fno-implement-inlines -fimplement-inlines \ +// RUN: -fplt \ // RUN: -fstack-check \ // RUN: -fforce-addr \ // RUN: -malign-functions=100 \ > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [arch-dev-public] Changing compilation flags > From: arch-dev-public@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > To: Evangelos Foutras <evangelos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Daniel Micay <danielmicay@xxxxxxxxx>, Public mailing list for Arch Linux development <arch-dev-public@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> 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.
