llvm dev - Jan 2015 - [LLVMdev] Should llvm include a linker?

I've been thinking about how easy it would be to integrate lld into
the main llvm repo:

1) Preserve history with: `svnadmin load --parent-dir tools/lld . < lld.dump`
2) Move lld's target-specific libraries up to `lib/Target`, and
remaining libraries up to `lib`.
3) Move everything from the lld namespace to the llvm namespace.

But would it be valuable?  I'd think that non-C, llvm-based compilers
like GHC or Rust would have the most to gain.  Anybody else see value
in it?  Maybe those that maintain the Target directories?

In your response, let's please avoid discussion about coding
conventions and sanitizer builds.  Assume that's all resolved before
this integration is considered.

Thanks,
Greg

It's not clear to me that this is worthwhile. Right now LLVM has no linker
dependency, so there's no pressing reason to want to fold LLD into LLVM to
solve a circular dependency. LLD can just depend on LLVM to get LTO working.

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com>
wrote:
> I've been thinking about how easy it would be to integrate lld into
> the main llvm repo:
>
> 1) Preserve history with: `svnadmin load --parent-dir tools/lld . <
> lld.dump`
> 2) Move lld's target-specific libraries up to `lib/Target`, and
> remaining libraries up to `lib`.
> 3) Move everything from the lld namespace to the llvm namespace.
>
> But would it be valuable?  I'd think that non-C, llvm-based compilers
> like GHC or Rust would have the most to gain.  Anybody else see value
> in it?  Maybe those that maintain the Target directories?
>
> In your response, let's please avoid discussion about coding
> conventions and sanitizer builds.  Assume that's all resolved before
> this integration is considered.
>
> Thanks,
> Greg
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150129/77e58059/attachment.html>

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com>
wrote:
> It's not clear to me that this is worthwhile.
I'd think you'd see value when new languages get off the ground faster
because they don't need to think about linking.  Dealing with all the
subtle differences between the various system linkers is no fun.
Maybe that's not a ton of value, but as I mentioned, the integration
is not a ton of work either.

> Right now LLVM has no linker dependency
Correct, a linker dependency is not required.  But by comparison,
binutils ships similar tools to llvm, but it also ships a linker.

-Greg