Am Donnerstag, November 01, 2018 21:50 CET, Stuart Henderson <[email protected]> schrieb:
> 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 .. > Also, I'm looking into the problem of www/sogo, see the backtrace I just sent, it smells like ld being the culprit. This is objective-c stuff, not havily used throughout the ports tree outside x11/gnustep. I haven't yet tested all the desktop goo. I'll try this patch here to switch back to ld.bfd, and see if it makes a difference. Sebastian
