Hi, Is it OK to commit this? Thanks.
Logan On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 4:01 PM, David Chisnall <[email protected] > wrote: > On 25 Jun 2014, at 19:20, Tim Northover <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> It's a bit binutils-centric isn't it? Can't we make it accept a > >> basename instead, so that any new or otherwise odd (ld.gold-2.25? lld? > >> mclinker?) linker can be used instead without modifying Clang. > > > > *Sigh*. Apologies. I've just noticed this comes from GCC land, so > > we've probably got to follow for compatibility. After all, why would > > anyone want to use anything except the system-default ld.gold or > > ld.bfd, they're perfect! > > The gcc version hard-codes gold and bfd as the two valid options. My > patch, which Logan has cleaned up and fixed, allows --fuse-ld= to take a > string and then searches for a program called ld.{whatever the argument > string was}. This means that you can install lld and create an ld.lld->lld > symlink and have -fuse-ld=lld work without having to change the clang code. > > In discussion when I wrote this patch, the consensus was that we should > (initially, at least), only support linkers that had command-line syntax > compatible with the system linker via this option. If the linker needs > different arguments, then some more invasive changes are required. This > should be enough for users to switch between bfd ld, gold, lld, and > mclinker, however (and hopefully bold once it is released) on ELF platforms. > > David
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
