On Jul 4, 2016, at 12:36 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf <mar...@trippelsdorf.de> 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. > So I see no reason why it should be supported in GCC. > > (And who needs a buggy new ELF linker anyway?)
So, this is off-topic for the list, gnu.misc.discuss is a better forum for such things, if you want. The GNU tools have no prohibition with working with system libraries that are non-free, nor non-free tools, such as ar, nm, ld and as or even simulators. Contributions for interoperability with other tools will be considered. gcc has always been widely compatible and interoperable with more than just Linux systems.
