krytarowski added a comment. In D56215#1344317 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56215#1344317>, @joerg wrote:
> In D56215#1344279 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56215#1344279>, @krytarowski > wrote: > > > In D56215#1344183 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56215#1344183>, @joerg wrote: > > > > > This doesn't seem a reasonable approach at all: > > > > > > (1) It breaks cross-linking. > > > (2) It is not correct for any target architecture, e.g. /usr/local/lib > > > certainly doesn't belong on this list and /lib doesn't either. > > > (3) The correct list depends not only on the target architecture, but > > > also the active emulation. > > > > > > Is it acceptable to pass all the paths through configure/build phase of > > lld? It's done this way in GNU ld in the NetBSD distribution. If we need or > > want to hardcode all the specific paths it will be harder to maintain the > > proper list and behavior inside lld. > > > I don't think that would be better either. The main point is that it needs a > lot more architectural knowledge than shown in the path. I would expect e.g. > Linux distros have a similar problem nowadays. What's the expected solution? This is a blocker to move on. Repository: rLLD LLVM Linker CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D56215/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D56215 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
