Evan Laforge <[email protected]> writes: > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Ben Gamari <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> In short, ./configure will now choose to use ld.gold or ld.lld if >> available (although this can be disabled using the --disable-ld-override >> configure flag). > > Just from curiosity, does this apply to OS X? Of course, gold is > ELF-only, so it surely doesn't apply, but there's still lld. OS X > uses clang to compile so I thought it might already use lld, but the > 'ld -v' output looks different, and lld.llvm.org implies it's a > replacement for OS X ld, so maybe not. But it doesn't look like GNU > ld either, so maybe it's not affected by the BFD bug? > > I'll try 8.2 on OS X and see if the link time changes.
8.2 will prefer both gold and lld over bfd ld. However two conditions
must hold for these to be used,
* The ld.lld/ld.gold executable must be in $PATH (or explicitly named
by passing the LD variable to configure)
* $CC must understand the `-fuse-ld={gold,lld}` option. For (IMHO quite
silly) political reasons, gcc doesn't support `-fuse-ld=lld`. Debian
happens to patch gcc to add support but I don't know how common this
is in other distributions.
Unfortunately, some earlier `gcc` versions didn't fail if given a
`-fuse-ld` option that they didn't understand. Sadly we have no reliable
way to detect this, so in this case we may end up passing a `-fuse-ld`
option that gcc simply ignores.
In the case of OS X we use Apple's own home-grown linker. I'm not sure
whether/how OS X's gcc wrapper treats `-fuse-ld` (beyond that it doesn't
error if the flag is given). I also don't know whether lld is currently a
capable replacement for OS X ld.
Cheers,
- Ben
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
