On 2018/10/30 17:49, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > Marc Espie: > > > > I'm more inclined to remove USE_LLD again. > > > What actual use do you envision for either USE_LLD=Yes on !clang > > > or USE_LLD=No on clang archs? > > > > the vmm bios ? doesn't it require some kind of weird 16 bit support. > > That's a singular case that can be handled by passing in LD=ld.bfd > if we can't find a solution with lld. > > Once we get over the Mesa blocker, I need to talk sthen@ into doing > an i386 bulk build with lld. I expect some additional fallout > compared to amd64 due to crufty non-PIC asm code, but should anything > turn up that can't be made to work with lld, it will likely be a > candidate for deletion. > > I don't exactly forsee a use for USE_LLD on non-x86 either.
Given what we've seen with various readline related ports and now Qt (link succeeds, runtime fails) it does seem like it might be useful for porters to be able to flip back if they need to test and compare behaviour until we've got a bit more experience ..
