>> Generally, I like it though. My concerns are mostly with ports and gcc plans.
>> Though it isn't coupled to gcc, I'd suggest that we want to have a joint plan
>> for both before we get out the axes. Note this is purely a timing argument,
>> not whether to get them out, just when :)
>
> Yes,
For some reason Warner's email didn't make it to me, but I spotted it
in the list archive.
Warner writes:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Ed Maste wrote:
>> -N/--omagic, used by some boot loader components. We can achieve the
>> same effect with a linker script.
>
> Agreed. Or objcopy even.
Warner Losh imp at bsdimp.com wrote on Aug 1 22:27:19 UTC 2016 :
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Ed Maste wrote:
>
> > There is (some) support for mips and powerpc in lld, but I'm not sure
> > how well tested it is. RISC-V is not yet supported but there is a
> > desire to have a full
Over the past year or so I have been investigating the state of LLVM's
lld linker for use in the FreeBSD base system, to see if it could be
used as FreeBSD's system linker.
Why do we need a new linker? Compared to the GNU ld 2.17.50 that we
have in the FreeBSD base system, lld will bring:
*
