llvm dev - Jul 2018 - Failing compiler-rt LTO test

> My understanding in the past is that we didn't officially support
> using the llvm gold plugin with ld.bfd. We don't have any bots that
> test that combination (which is why you see the code below in
> lit.common.cfg). In my mind, that means using the llvm gold plugin
> with ld.bfd is at your own risk (and therefore I would like to remove
> the wording around using ld.bfd from the above doc, or at least add
> that disclaimer).
>
> Can you use gold or lld instead?
Thanks Teresa!  We are indeed planning to use gold eventually.  At first
I thought the tests were failing because ld.bfd wasn't supported but
then I saw the web page and got confused.  :)  I posted the question
because I wanted to make sure we hadn't broken anything.

For now I'll just ignore the failures knowing they'll go away when we
switch.

                            -David

Great, glad you are planning to use gold (lld also is fine, it hooks
directly into the LLVM sources without needing a plugin).

For now I have reverted the change to the doc, to avoid confusion.

Thanks!
Teresa

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 12:15 PM David A. Greene <dag at cray.com> wrote:
> > My understanding in the past is that we didn't officially support
> > using the llvm gold plugin with ld.bfd. We don't have any bots
that
> > test that combination (which is why you see the code below in
> > lit.common.cfg). In my mind, that means using the llvm gold plugin
> > with ld.bfd is at your own risk (and therefore I would like to remove
> > the wording around using ld.bfd from the above doc, or at least add
> > that disclaimer).
> >
> > Can you use gold or lld instead?
>
> Thanks Teresa!  We are indeed planning to use gold eventually.  At first
> I thought the tests were failing because ld.bfd wasn't supported but
> then I saw the web page and got confused.  :)  I posted the question
> because I wanted to make sure we hadn't broken anything.
>
> For now I'll just ignore the failures knowing they'll go away when
we
> switch.
>
>                             -David
>

-- 
Teresa Johnson |  Software Engineer |  tejohnson at google.com |  408-460-2413
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180711/32e356ce/attachment.html>

Unfortunately lld won't work for us yet due to a lack of linker script
features (sorry, I don't know the details).

Thanks for fixing up the docs.

                       -David

Teresa Johnson via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes:
> Great, glad you are planning to use gold (lld also is fine, it hooks
> directly into the LLVM sources without needing a plugin).
>
> For now I have reverted the change to the doc, to avoid confusion.
>
> Thanks!
> Teresa
>
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 12:15 PM David A. Greene <dag at cray.com>
wrote:
>
>     > My understanding in the past is that we didn't officially
>     support
>     > using the llvm gold plugin with ld.bfd. We don't have any bots
>     that
>     > test that combination (which is why you see the code below in
>     > lit.common.cfg). In my mind, that means using the llvm gold
>     plugin
>     > with ld.bfd is at your own risk (and therefore I would like to
>     remove
>     > the wording around using ld.bfd from the above doc, or at least
>     add
>     > that disclaimer).
>     >
>     > Can you use gold or lld instead?
>     
>     Thanks Teresa! We are indeed planning to use gold eventually. At
>     first
>     I thought the tests were failing because ld.bfd wasn't supported
>     but
>     then I saw the web page and got confused. :) I posted the question
>     because I wanted to make sure we hadn't broken anything.
>     
>     For now I'll just ignore the failures knowing they'll go away
when
>     we
>     switch.
>     
>     -David