On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 02:43:34AM +0200, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote: > On 04-05-2012 01:57, H. S. Teoh wrote: [...] > >The problem with writing linkers is that they are usually closely > >tied to implementation details on the host OS. [...] > I know, but that doesn't mean you can't write the linker so that it > actually *is* portable at *all* (unlike a certain other linker ;).
True, you could have a properly designed generic framework that makes plugging in new OS-dependent code very easy. I believe something like this is done by GNU BFD (binutils & family, probably subsuming ld as well). But then, you might as well just use binutils in the first place. :-) The only catch is that windows has its own conventions on stuff, and binutils is (AFAIK) tied to Posix. [...] > >To be frank, I question the wisdom of not just using ld on Posix > >systems... but OTOH, the world *needs* better linker technology than > >we currently have, so this projects like this one is a good thing. > > Well, there's currently an LLVM linker in the works. If anything, > that's probably the way forward. But seeing as DMD is not using > LLVM... [...] As long as LDC is an option, I think all is well. :-) T -- Only boring people get bored. -- JM
