> Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 14:22:33 -0400
> From: George Koehler <kern...@gmail.com>
>
> On Fri, 7 May 2021 10:31:55 +0200 (CEST)
> Mark Kettenis <mark.kette...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> > Makes sense to me. It seems ldd always seems to require a little bit
> > more coercion to produce non-standard binaries. We use linker scripts
> > for the various EFI bootloaders as well.
> >
> > ok kettenis@
>
> My diff had an extra "pwd" in arch/macppc/stand/ofwboot/Makefile;
> I deleted the "pwd" before committing it.
>
> > > -${PROG}: ${OBJS} ${LIBSA} ${LIBZ}
> > > - ${LD} -nopie -znorelro -N -X -Ttext ${RELOC} -e ${ENTRY} -o ${PROG} \
> > > +${PROG}: ${OBJS} ${LIBSA} ${LIBZ} ld.script
> > > + pwd
> > > + ${LD} -nopie -znorelro -N -X -T ${.CURDIR}/ld.script -o ${PROG} \
> > > ${OBJS} ${LIBS}
>
> >From my experiments with lld 10, I believe that macppc is almost ready
> to switch from ld.bfd to ld.lld. I know of 2 other problems:
>
> 1. ports/lang/gcc/8 needs USE_LLD = No, because lld 10 can't link
> C++ code from gcc. (I have not yet checked lld 11.) lld had no
> problem with Fortran ports built by gcc.
>
> 2. All instances of -Wl,-relax or -Wl,--relax in src or ports must
> be deleted, because it is an unknown option to lld, but lld can
> link large binaries without the option.
Maybe just coordinate with Theo and the ports folks and move ahead.
