[PATCH] D16599: ELF: Define another entry point.

Rafael EspĂ­ndola via llvm-commits llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Tue Feb 2 14:22:47 PST 2016

>> Just trying to be clear, so that if, 6 months from now, the topic comes up
>> again there's not another round of confusion over what's
>> reasonable/intended/in-scope or out of scope.
> For the record, I didn't agree that we absolutely have to handle files read
> from disk as untrusted. I agree that that's a good thing, and I promise I
> will make a reasonable effort, but that is not a conclusion of this thread.
> (I'm sorry to be defensive saying, but I'm afraid that if we come back 6
> months from now, it would have looked like a conclusion of this thread.)

I strongly agree. Once the higher priorities lld has right now are
done, I would be OK reviewing a patch that tries to make lld handle
arbitrary files, but:

* Not now, we have higher priority items.
* It is not something I would probably code myself.
* No guarantees that the patch would actually be accepted.
* I honestly have no idea short of using fork or maybe throw for doing
it in a way that is not contrary to having a fast and easy to maintain
linker. I would love to be proved wrong.


More information about the llvm-commits mailing list