| 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. |
Archives