On 4 October 2016 at 10:09, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com>
wrote:
> Forking this from a discussion here:
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-October/105601.html
>
> It looks like the recent 2.26 versions of ld.bfd has enabled usage of
> ld.bfd with LLVMgold.so. This combination caused some failures when trying
> to bootstrap clang with ThinLTO, when ld.bfd was inadvertently used instead
> of ld.gold (which took awhile to reproduce until we tracked down the
> difference in linkers being used). The above thread has a small reproducer,
> which turns out to be an issue with LTO as well (not specific to ThinLTO).
> It is probably a bug I should file against ld.bfd.
>
> A few general questions:
>
> The LLVM documentation at http://llvm.org/docs/GoldPlugin.html indicates:
> "LTO support on Linux systems requires that you use the gold linker
> which supports LTO via plugins"
> Should this be updated?
>
>
It would probably make sense to mention that newer bfds might work but as
not as tested.
> Is the usage of LLVMgold.so with ld.bfd a combination being tested by any
> bots? Should it be?
>
>
I don't think it is being tested at the moment. If it is already fairly
functional it would probably be a good thing to have.
Cheers,
Rafael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20161006/072d4acc/attachment.html>