joerg added a comment. In D56215#1344279 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56215#1344279>, @krytarowski wrote:
> In D56215#1344183 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56215#1344183>, @joerg wrote: > > > This doesn't seem a reasonable approach at all: > > > > (1) It breaks cross-linking. > > (2) It is not correct for any target architecture, e.g. /usr/local/lib > > certainly doesn't belong on this list and /lib doesn't either. > > (3) The correct list depends not only on the target architecture, but also > > the active emulation. > > > Is it acceptable to pass all the paths through configure/build phase of lld? > It's done this way in GNU ld in the NetBSD distribution. If we need or want > to hardcode all the specific paths it will be harder to maintain the proper > list and behavior inside lld. I don't think that would be better either. The main point is that it needs a lot more architectural knowledge than shown in the path. I would expect e.g. Linux distros have a similar problem nowadays. Repository: rLLD LLVM Linker CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D56215/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D56215 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
