This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: PATCH: Support --enable-gold=both --with-linker=[bfd|gold]


On 05.01.2010 23:59, Roland McGrath wrote:
>> I'm still not entirely convinced that this is the way to go.  It seems
>> to me that ideally one wants to be able to select the linker at
>> runtime.  I don't see how this patch supports that.  What am I
>> missing?
>
> It covers the first step by letting you run "ld.bfd" or "ld.gold" to
> choose.  Having the two binaries installed by those names is a good start
> and seems likely to be part of how any fancier plan would work, so why not
> start there?

agreed on this.

Mainly because an alternative is to install them in subdirectories
with the name ld.  Then gcc can run them directly using a -B option.
I don't know which approach is best.

I think it keeps things simplest for humans to understand if the actual binaries are available as ld.bfd and ld.gold. If you then want some obscure directory names containing an "ld" for gcc's use, then make those symlinks. Personally, I think -Wl,--gold (via $(bindir)/ld being a wrapper script) is nicer than -B/usr/libexec/binutils/gold/ or whatnot.

why not make this more explicit by adding an option --ld<ld> which is directly understood by the gcc driver?


Matthias


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]