[rfc][gold plugin] Fix pr19901

[Robinson, Paul]

> >> 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.
> 
> so, lib/LTO or tools/lto?
> 
> tools/lto is effectively the ld64 interface now. It works and it is
> pretty stable, but don't expect many new features in that.

Looks like we're using tools/lto (although doesn't that call lib/LTO?).
--paulr

> 
> What lib/LTO will be in the future is somewhat fuzzy (see my previous
> email on the thread).
> 
> > Or has my irony/dry-wit filter failed again...
> > --paulr
> >
> 
> Cheers,
> Rafael