On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 at 20:01, Rebecca Cran <rebe...@bsdio.com> wrote: > > On 3/28/23 11:57 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > > > As I have indicated before, I am strongly in favor of these changes. > > However, using LLD with X86 and GNU ld with ARM is not what I would > > like to see here: not only is it a bad idea for a single toolchain > > definition to deviate in this manner between architectures, I also > > think that having the ability to use LLD for ARM would be nice in > > itself, as it removes the need for cross toolchains entirely, lowering > > the bar for contributors to ensure that their changes do not regress > > other architectures. And there are some differences related to BTI > > that could be interesting as well. > > I agree, it's not ideal. My knowledge of linker issues is relatively > limited at the moment, which is why I decided not to use LLD when I saw > it was failing. > > I can spend some time learning about it and send out a v3 with LLD > enabled for ARM. >
Happy to help What kind of errors are you seeing after adding -Wl,--no-pie,--no-relax ? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#102058): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/102058 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/97910990/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
