MaskRay added a comment. @theraven Are you ok with this change? You seem to have a use case not using ld.bfd, ld.gold or ld.lld . This change will require you to adapt.
In D80225#2049466 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D80225#2049466>, @jyknight wrote: > It's worrying to me that there number of places in LLVM that at the exact > argument value of "-fuse-ld=". E.g. in the windows and PS4 toolchains. We > already claim to support arbitrary values and full paths, but if you specify > "-fuse-ld=/path/to/lld-link" on Windows today, you end up with different > behavior than "-fuse-ld=lld" (which gets translated to searching for an > "lld-link" binary, but also triggers other conditions). > > That's not a reason to not make this particular change, but if conditionals > on the flavor of linker are going to be used, that seems like perhaps a > reason why we should not accept arbitrary values at all? This is indeed unfortunate, but I can see the reasons people customize linker options for different linkers. An arbitrary value is a bit convenient when people want to compare behavior differences between different versions of a linker. As a linker developer I do this a lot. Some ClangBuiltLinux folks do this. (In addition, an absolute path can sometimes give extra confidence that a particular executable is picked -> `-fuse-ld=lld` may pick one from PATH if `ld.lld` does not sit beside `clang`.) Now @keith also expresses interest in such a feature. I think it is really difficult for us to drop it now. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D80225/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D80225 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
