On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 07:28:45PM +1100, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 08:10:36AM +0000, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 07:05:08PM +1100, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 07:51:44AM +0000, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 06:15:59PM +1100, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> > > > > From lld svn rev 324739 with -z muldefs and -z retpolineplt text 
> > > > > removed
> > > > > to match lld 5.0.1.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > morning.
> > > > 
> > > > this will replace the ld page for archs building llvm, right? haven;t
> > > > the stomach to read it yet, but no objections. you should probably add
> > > > an Nm entry to NAME for "ld" though:
> > > > 
> > > >         .Sh NAME
> > > >         .Nm ld.lld ,
> > > >         .Nm ld
> > > 
> > > lld is ld only on arm64 but is built/installed on all archs that build
> > > llvm as ld.lld.  So we can't do that at the moment as ld is binutils/bfd
> > > ld everywhere else.
> > > 
> > 
> > ah ok.
> > 
> > it will still make sense no? if it gets installed for arm64 only it will
> > be correct for that arch and the situation unchanged for others. or have i
> > misunderstood?
> 
> The binary is installed on all architectures that build llvm as
> /usr/bin/ld.lld and is also installed as /usr/bin/ld on arm64.
> 
> With ld.1 from binutils and ld.lld.1 with ld in .Nm 'man ld' will pick
> the binutils page but the ld.lld.1 page will show up in 'man -a ld' even
> on architectures where ld is not lld.
> 

ok, i see. so no objections to your diff.
jmc

Reply via email to