1 |
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 9:41 PM Manoj Gupta <manojgupta@××××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> |
4 |
> |
5 |
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 1:01 PM Theo Anderson <telans@××××××.de> wrote: |
6 |
>> |
7 |
>> Hello, please see the below patch to support disabling ld.lld like |
8 |
>> ld.gold. This has not been split into a separate function |
9 |
>> such as tc-ld-disable-lld(), as I do not believe there is a use case |
10 |
>> where ld.gold is supported and ld.lld is not. |
11 |
>> |
12 |
>> Thanks. |
13 |
>> |
14 |
>> Pull-request: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/19116 |
15 |
>> |
16 |
> |
17 |
> I am not a Gentoo maintainer but this forces bfd linker for the ebuilds when gold is not even used e.g. lld is default linker. I am curious how many places where gold is disabled do not work with lld. |
18 |
> In my experience, LLD is far more compatible with bfd than gold e.g. it can link Linux kernels. So, imo we should not disable lld as a side effect when the compatibility problem is with gold only. |
19 |
> i.e. It is ok to add a function to force bfd but disabling gold needs to have a check if gold is the current linker. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> My preference us to add 2 functions: |
22 |
> tc-ld-force-bfd |
23 |
> tc-ld-disable-lld |
24 |
> |
25 |
> And tc-ld-disable-gold should check if gold is the current linker. If not, only then force bfd. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> What do the maintainers think? |
28 |
|
29 |
Please see bug 729510 for an example where gold and lld do not work, |
30 |
but bfd does. That bug precipitated this change in the first place. |
31 |
|
32 |
I don't think there are any cases where we want to disable lld without |
33 |
disabling gold. Maybe it would suffice to un-deprecate |
34 |
tc-ld-disable-gold and only have it call tc-ld-force-bfd if the |
35 |
default linker is gold. I don't think a separate tc-ld-disable-lld |
36 |
function is necessary at this time, and it could be easily added |
37 |
later. |