[llvm-dev] lld: ELF/COFF main() interface

[Lang Hames via llvm-dev]

I think Chandler's right. I do hope to eventually integrate LLD into the
JIT, but I expect it to be a reasonably natural fit - I don't think we need
to make any preemptive design decisions based on that possibility.

Cheers,
Lang.

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 5:19 PM Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I don't disagree with anything Chandler said, but it's worth noting that
>> we *already* have a specialized in-process linker used to MCJIT to resolve
>> relocations and patch things like symbolic calls.  It'd be really really
>> nice if the new linker library supported that use case.
>>
>
> Yep. But I also think it is reasonable to design the API to support that
> use case when we're actually wiring it together and making it work. I think
> trying to build an API that we think will support that use case without
> actually integrating it into LLVM's JIT is much more likely to end up with
> the wrong API, and has a higher chance over-engineering the API into one
> more complex than is necessary.
>
> I think that's the concern Rui has here, which seems reasonable.
>
> None of this says that once someone is actually working on doing this
> integration we shouldn't figure out the right API and make it happen. We
> should. This is another use case that makes total sense.
>
> -Chandler
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160107/5f67b55c/attachment-0001.html>