On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf <mar...@trippelsdorf.de> wrote: > On 2016.07.04 at 10:08 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 9:38 PM, Davide Italiano <dccitali...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Davide Italiano <dccitali...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> + HJ who wrote the code for the option originally. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 9:01 PM, Davide Italiano <dccitali...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >>> LLVM currently ships with a new ELF linker http://lld.llvm.org/. >> >>> I experiment a lot with gcc and lld so it would be nice if >> >>> -fuse-ld=lld is supported (considering the linker is now mature enough >> >>> to link large C/C++ applications). >> >>> >> >>> Also, IMHO, -fuse-ld should be a generic facility which accept other >> >>> linkers (as long as they follow the convention ld.<arg>), and should >> >>> also support absolute path, e.g. -fuse-ld=/usr/local/bin/ld.mylinker. >> >>> Probably outside of the scope of this patch, but I thought worth >> >>> mentioning. >> > >> > Hi, can anybody take a look? >> >> lld isn't compatible with GCC: >> >> https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28414 > > Besides the technical issues, this also raises the question if it is > right to support lld at all. Because this project was obviously started > to replace the GNU linkers (ld.bfd and gold) in the long run. > So I see no reason why it should be supported in GCC. > > (And who needs a buggy new ELF linker anyway?)
Fair enough. Consider this patch withdrawn, sorry for the noise. -- Davide
