[PATCH] D80225: [Driver] Recognize -fuse-ld={bfd, gold, lld} but don't prepend "ld." or "ld64." for other values

MaskRay abandoned this revision. MaskRay added a comment. Abandon in favor of D83015 Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D80225/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D80225 _

[PATCH] D80225: [Driver] Recognize -fuse-ld={bfd, gold, lld} but don't prepend "ld." or "ld64." for other values

MaskRay added a comment. @theraven Are you ok with this change? You seem to have a use case not using ld.bfd, ld.gold or ld.lld . This change will require you to adapt. In D80225#2049466 , @jyknight wrote: > It's worrying to me that there number of place

[PATCH] D80225: [Driver] Recognize -fuse-ld={bfd, gold, lld} but don't prepend "ld." or "ld64." for other values

keith added a comment. I've submitted a related change to accept relative paths for `-fuse-ld` https://reviews.llvm.org/D80660 Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D80225/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D80225

[PATCH] D80225: [Driver] Recognize -fuse-ld={bfd, gold, lld} but don't prepend "ld." or "ld64." for other values

jyknight added a comment. It's worrying to me that there number of places in LLVM that at the exact argument value of "-fuse-ld=". E.g. in the windows and PS4 toolchains. We already claim to support arbitrary values and full paths, but if you specify "-fuse-ld=/path/to/lld-link" on Windows toda

[PATCH] D80225: [Driver] Recognize -fuse-ld={bfd, gold, lld} but don't prepend "ld." or "ld64." for other values

rnk added a comment. Personally, I support this. I never liked the magic `ld.` prefixing. If we want a way to select a proprietary linker, it seems reasonable to ask the user to name the complete binary basename (`ld.lld`, `lld`, `ld64`, `myld`, etc). The driver shouldn't force the linker to us

[PATCH] D80225: [Driver] Recognize -fuse-ld={bfd, gold, lld} but don't prepend "ld." or "ld64." for other values

MaskRay added a comment. In D80225#2046154 , @theraven wrote: > I'm a bit nervous about this. I'm aware of at least one out-of-tree > toolchain that uses this mechanism to select their proprietary linker. I'd > expect an RFC and for this to be highligh

[PATCH] D80225: [Driver] Recognize -fuse-ld={bfd, gold, lld} but don't prepend "ld." or "ld64." for other values

theraven added a comment. I'm a bit nervous about this. I'm aware of at least one out-of-tree toolchain that uses this mechanism to select their proprietary linker. I'd expect an RFC and for this to be highlighted in LLVM Weekly before I'm happy that this won't break downstream consumers. R

[PATCH] D80225: [Driver] Recognize -fuse-ld={bfd, gold, lld} but don't prepend "ld." or "ld64." for other values

MaskRay updated this revision to Diff 265026. MaskRay added a comment. Fix fuse-ld-windows.c Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D80225/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D80225 Files: clang/lib/Driver/ToolChain.cpp clang/test/Driver/Input

[PATCH] D80225: [Driver] Recognize -fuse-ld={bfd, gold, lld} but don't prepend "ld." or "ld64." for other values

MaskRay updated this revision to Diff 264995. MaskRay added a comment. Fix fuse-ld-windows.c (I don't have Windows (REQUIRES: system-windows), so I failed to catch the issue earlier) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D80225/new/ https:/

[PATCH] D80225: [Driver] Recognize -fuse-ld={bfd, gold, lld} but don't prepend "ld." or "ld64." for other values

MaskRay created this revision. MaskRay added reviewers: martell, rnk, sbc100, theraven. Herald added subscribers: cfe-commits, sunfish, aheejin. Herald added a project: clang. - https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55470 added support for -fuse-ld=bfd to mean `ld.bfd` and -fuse-ld=gold to