On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 09:36:52PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf 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.
Technically it seems like it would be useful to support -fuse-ld=<something that can be execed> so you can say easily test gcc with a ld.bfd you just built. > So I see no reason why it should be supported in GCC. > > (And who needs a buggy new ELF linker anyway?) I'm not particularly thrilled by a new linker, but presumably the bugs will get fixed, and it does link libxul.so and presumably other things but I don't have data, and that is certainly useful. Trev
