[rfc][gold plugin] Fix pr19901

[Robinson, Paul]

Hope I'm not digressing too much (let me know) but...

> I'm very sympathetic to the idea of not fixing libLTO and letting it rot 
> (oops, I meant to say letting Apple maintain it for ld64), though not doing 
> that would make ultimately make libLTO stronger. I'm calling this out as a 
> deliberate choice we have to make, we can either push libLTO to being well 
> enough designed to handle linkers with very different plugin ideologies (and 
> thus useful for others), or we can consign it to being an ld64 feature. If 
> gold can't use libLTO because its interface is too limiting, it's likely lld 
> won't either, that any third party linkers won't, etc.

Uh... what?  We're actively pursuing LTO with our own linker, using (pretty
sure) libLTO.
Or has my irony/dry-wit filter failed again...
--paulr