search for: r123585

>> Agreed. If ld64 can drop support for .o produced by the old gcc that >> would be awesome. Failing that, what is really needed is > Because of static archives, the linker has to support old .o files for quite a while. I also don’t know when clang starting getting this right. r123585 (Jan 16 17:19:34 2011) I think. > Also, this seems like linker complexity for a very unlikely optimization (two named constants with same value). If someone cares about this level of optimization, they can use LTO which will do all the constant merging in LLVM. > >> >> LLVM shou...

>> The literalN sections were developed long ago to support coalescing of >> unnamed constants like 9.897 in source code for architectures that could not >> embed large constants in instructions. The linker could knew how to break >> up the section (e.g. __literal8 is always 8 byte chunks) and coalesce copies >> by content. >> >> ~6 years ago we