On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 9:41 PM Manoj Gupta <manojgu...@google.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 1:01 PM Theo Anderson <tel...@posteo.de> wrote: >> >> Hello, please see the below patch to support disabling ld.lld like >> ld.gold. This has not been split into a separate function >> such as tc-ld-disable-lld(), as I do not believe there is a use case >> where ld.gold is supported and ld.lld is not. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Pull-request: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/19116 >> > > 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. > 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. > 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. > > My preference us to add 2 functions: > tc-ld-force-bfd > tc-ld-disable-lld > > And tc-ld-disable-gold should check if gold is the current linker. If not, > only then force bfd. > > What do the maintainers think?
Please see bug 729510 for an example where gold and lld do not work, but bfd does. That bug precipitated this change in the first place. I don't think there are any cases where we want to disable lld without disabling gold. Maybe it would suffice to un-deprecate tc-ld-disable-gold and only have it call tc-ld-force-bfd if the default linker is gold. I don't think a separate tc-ld-disable-lld function is necessary at this time, and it could be easily added later.
