[llvm-dev] LLD's default --build-id choice

Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Jun 1 17:03:22 PDT 2016

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 03:21:08PM -0700, Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev wrote:
> > In the first place, I believe it was not a good decision to make GCC (and
> > therefore Clang) to pass --build-id option to the linker by default (it
> was
> > done in 2009 <https://lists.debian.org/debian-gcc/2009/07/msg00082.html
> >).
> > Build ID is sometimes useful, particularly when distributing linked
> objects
> > to users, but in most cases it is not needed. Spending 10% more time on
> > usual build-link-debug cycle is a waste of time. It should not have been
> > added that casually.
> I fully agree on this (not passing it down by default automatically),
> since it doesn't create a very useful key.
> > --build-id=uuid sets build-id to a random unique value. It's very fast.
> > Instead, it breaks build reproducibility because every build has a unique
> > build ID. But if you want build reproducibility, you can explicitly pass
> > --build-id=sha1.
> I think this is worse than not doing anything at all. What about the
> hash tree options, those can at least be computed piecewise and
> concurrently?

We could but it only mitigate the issue. If the decision was wrong in the
first place, I want to fix it completely if it's not too late.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160601/7c37b40c/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list