Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "d25263".
Did you mean:
25263
2016 Oct 28
0
[cfe-dev] LLD to be the default linker in Clang
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Renato Golin via cfe-dev
<cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> I'm creating a bootstrap buildbot on AArch64 with LLD and I just
> realised the "accepted" way to make clang call lld is to "symlink lld
> -> ld". I understand that's how every Linux system "chooses" the
> linker, but that makes deployment and
2016 Oct 31
2
[cfe-dev] LLD to be the default linker in Clang
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Sean Silva via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Renato Golin via cfe-dev
> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> I'm creating a bootstrap buildbot on AArch64 with LLD and I just
>> realised the "accepted" way to make clang call lld
2016 Oct 30
0
[cfe-dev] LLD to be the default linker in Clang
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Renato Golin via cfe-dev <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I'm creating a bootstrap buildbot on AArch64 with LLD and I just
> realised the "accepted" way to make clang call lld is to "symlink lld
> -> ld". I understand that's how every Linux system "chooses" the
> linker, but that
2016 Oct 28
9
LLD to be the default linker in Clang
Folks,
I'm creating a bootstrap buildbot on AArch64 with LLD and I just
realised the "accepted" way to make clang call lld is to "symlink lld
-> ld". I understand that's how every Linux system "chooses" the
linker, but that makes deployment and validation quite cumbersome on
GNU systems.
I'd like to suggest a change in behaviour:
// Some flag like