On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 03:06:41PM +0000, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 20/10/18 12:18 +0200, Romain Geissler wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I would like to raise again the question of supporting -fuse-ld=ldd. A > > patch implementing it was already submitted in > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-06/msg01722.html by Davide > > Italiano. This patch still applies correctly to current trunk. I am CC-ing > > the original author and re-posting it here unchanged for reference. > > > > I think we can consider this patch as relevant despite the goals and > > licence difference of LLVM vs GNU, based on what was written by Mike Stump > > in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-07/msg00157.html > > > > Back then, the technical problem raised by lld was reported as > > https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28414 now closed. In this bug, every > > reported problems have been fixed except the last one. H.J. Lu mentions > > this last problem (lld does not produces symbol versions predecessor > > relationship while ld.bfd and ld.gold do, which seems to be a decision > > taken on purpose and advertised as a harmless change) as being one reason > > against supporting in -fuse-ld=ldd in gcc. Is it still the case today, and > > if yes, why ? > > > > Is there any other reason why -fuse-ld=ldd shall not be supported by gcc ? > > This patch was committed to trunk (r265940), but HJ's review comments > were never addressed (and look correct to me): > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-07/msg00146.html > > The multi-line condition should be split before the || operator not > after it, and the negation of -fuse-ld=lld is not -fuse-ld-lld.
Indeed. Romain, are you going to submit a followup patch to address this? Marek
