[lld] r249752 - Revert: r249728 - Roll back r249726 and r249723 because they broke buildbots.

[via llvm-commits]

I think the start address of the image, is ABI defined isn't it ? A target
specific way of setting the start address would be necessary IMO.

>> I had originally thought that they had been causing problems, but going
>> back and restoring the original value (but keeping the page-size fix,
>> which definitely is necessary), sill produces a working hello-world
>> binary. Thus, I don't have a good answer for you, except to say that
>> these are the same magic values that ld.gold uses. That having been
>> said, I'd prefer to keep them this way. Poking around in the debugger,
>> this makes the addresses look more like what I'm used to seeing, and
>> FWIW, matching the behavior of existing linkers here seems like a
>> prudent approach.
>
> So, this is a small example of "cargo coding" I would like to avoid.
>
> Changing the values only when we actually know why their are needed
> seems a much better solution. In the X86_64 case that is how we found
> out what the restrictions actually were and have them documented in a
> comment.
>
> I can see why it has to be 64k aligned on ppc, but the original values was
> too.
>
> Would you mind reverting the getVAStart part until we actually know of
> a reason why a given architecture has to be different?
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>