[llvm-dev] LLD status update and performance chart

[Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev]

Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> writes:
> But this is not a technical argument. As a project, we rarely write programs, as such. We generally create reusable components that happen to have driver executables. At least long term, I think there's consensus that this is the best path. If we're going to make a different choice in this case, we need concrete reasons. We should discuss this in the context of the reasons you've provided (error handling, etc.).

We are not in a position no judge and will not be until the linker is
done. From what library support we have I think that was a horrible
mistake with a disproportionate cost.

*Once* the linker is done, if someone is able to first define what a
modular linker means, write a patch for it and show that it doesn't
degrade the linker performance or maintainability that is awesome. But
we don't have a linker yet, so, *PLEASE* let us write a linker. I don't
agree with how other parts of llvm are written but I don't keep
permanently nagging people do implement it the way *I* think is
correct.

Cheers,
Rafael