[llvm-dev] LLD status update and performance chart

[Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev]

> On Dec 13, 2016, at 9:40 AM, Rafael Avila de Espindola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> writes:
> 
>>> On Dec 13, 2016, at 5:55 AM, Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Sean Silva via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes:
>>>> This will also greatly facilitate certain measurements I'd like to do
>>>> w.r.t. different strategies for avoiding memory costs for input files (esp.
>>>> minor faults and dTLB costs). I've almost gotten to the point of
>>>> implementing this just to do those measurements.
>>> 
>>> If you do please keep it local. The bare minimum we have of library
>>> support is already disproportionately painful and prevents easier sharing
>>> with COFF. We should really not add more until the linker is done.
>> 
>> This is so much in contrast with the LLVM development, I find it quite hard to see this as an acceptable position on llvm-dev. 
> 
> Why? What is wrong with setting priorities and observing that what
> library support we already have has had a disproportional cost?

The library-hostile lld development goes against one the core principles that, I believe, drives the LLVM development: providing libraries and reusable components.

— 
Mehdi