[cfe-dev] [RFC] Recognize -fuse-ld={bfd, gold, lld} but don't prepend "ld." or "ld64." for other values

Fangrui Song via cfe-dev cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu May 28 19:12:47 PDT 2020

On 2020-05-28, David Blaikie wrote:
>Adding the folks from the code review
>On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 12:42 PM Fangrui Song <maskray at google.com> wrote:
>> On 2020-05-20, David Blaikie wrote:
>> >On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 12:10 PM Fangrui Song via cfe-dev <
>> >cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D80225 I intended to update the semantics of
>> >> -fuse-ld=
>> >> Some context (from my archaeology) about the option
>> >>
>> >> * https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55470 added support for
>> >> -fuse-ld=bfd to mean ld.bfd and -fuse-ld=gold to mean ld.gold
>> >> * rL194328 ported the feature and made -fuse-ld= available for other
>> >> values (with the ld. prefix)
>> >> * D78290 changed the prefix to ld64. on Darwin.
>> >> * GCC added support for -fuse-ld=lld. No other value than bfd,gold,lld is
>> >> allowed (so our
>> >>    behavior change here will not be incompatible with GCC).
>> >>
>> >> Our existing behavior is cumbersome:
>> >>
>> >> * Inconsistency between an absolute
>> >>    path (which does not get a ld.  prefix) and a relative path (which gets
>> >>    a ld. prefix) For a relative path, -fuse-ld=dir/foo currently tries to
>> >>    access x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu-ld.dir/foo (if
>> >>    LLVM_DEFAULT_TARGET_TRIPLE is x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu).
>> >> * lld's new Mach-O port needs to pick an executable name. It would be
>> >>    nice if -fuse-ld= simply accepts a program name, not necessarily
>> >> prefixed by `ld64.`
>> >>
>> >
>> >To clarify (it seems like the link between "Mach-O lld needs to pick an
>> >executable name" and "it would be nice if -fuse-ld accepts a program name"
>> >isn't quite spelled out): By making this change to -fuse-ld it would enable
>> >the Mach-O version of lld to be called "lld" rather than "ld64.lld"? Is
>> >that the goal?
>> The Mach-O port can be named whatever developers like, no need to
>> coupled with a `ld64.` prefix.
>Given the needs of a multiplatform/busyboxed linker like lld, it seems
>likely that any future multiplatform linker would probably use this
>same sort of prefix going forward.
>> I do think of whether -fuse-ld=lld means different things would be a
>> nice property: ld.lld (ELF), wasm-ld (wasm), lld-link (COFF) in
>> different contexts. I realized it is not. The linker options on
>> different binary formats are very different. Targeting different binary
>> formats requires one to customize the linker options anyway, a common
>> -fuse-ld=lld does not save much.
>Yep, doesn't seem likely - is the intent to use "-fuse-ld" on non-ELF
>platforms and make it easier/possible to write "-fuse-ld=lld-link"
>instead of having to provide the full path? (or does that already
>work/does using a non-ELF platform already disable the "ld."
>> (In 2010, it might be cleaner if binutils did not install ld.bfd -> ld
>> and ld.gold -> gold ...... They could juse use -fuse-ld=ld to mean "ld"
>> and -fuse-ld=gold to mean "gold")
>Sure enough - though dealing with where we are today is trickier :/
>Breaking existing users that depend on this generalized prefixing
>seems significant - Sony's the best known/most likely to hit this that
>I know of. Hopefully Paul Robinson can speak to that.

clang::driver::tools::PS4cpu has its own logic
It is not affected, but hope Paul can confirm.

>If GCC is willing to make the same change, I don't feel too strongly
>about this - beyond the existing user breakage (which isn't an
>insignificant concern - breaking flag compatibility is something best
>avoided) the only future problem I could see (& given we're only
>currently living with 3 linkers, this isn't a huge deal) is that if
>another linker comes along there will be a subtle difference between
>"-fuse-ld=lld" and "-fuse-ld=newlink", at least because a user might
>be confused about exactly which binary is being used, in the former
>case it's "ld.lld" and in the latter it's "newlink". On top of that if
>that if "newlink" busyboxes, and perhaps the original name "newlink"
>either defaults to one platform (say MachO mode, like ld64.lld), but
>if you want to link for MachO, and busyboxes "ld.newlink" to provide
>the ld-compatible version - now you have to write
>"-fuse-ld=ld.newlink", but you don't have to do that with gold/etc...

GCC does not support -fuse-ld=relative/path or -fuse-ld=/abs/path or

I do have a patch to make it have a D80225 compatible behavior

>Eh, such is life, perhaps.
>If the desire is just to support relative paths, that could be
>implemented by trying the prefix version - and if that fails, then
>trying it as a relative path? Though I can see value in sort of
>deprecating/baking in the prefix support only for the existing users
>and forcing all new usage to use the actual executable name.
>- Dave

A relative path is supported. The desire is to eliminate differences
between "filename" and "relative/filename". The platform specific prefix
rule (well, sometimes suffix, e.g. lld-link) is also hard to remember.

"trying it as a relative path" can gratuitously add more `access`
syscalls.  I initially tried this idea for my GCC patch. Martin Liška pointed out
the problem.

(Note, we still have such a problem
access("/tmp/Debug/bin/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu-ld.dir/foo", R_OK|X_OK) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
target triple prefixes may not make lots of sense for clang tools

>> >Is Mach-O lld likely to need different command line compatibility than ELF
>> >or COFF lld? It seems like having a distinct name to enable detection of
>> >what command line support/object file format assumptions/other behavior
>> >changes compared to ELF/COFF may be useful, and "ld64.lld" is probably as
>> >good a name as any, if that functionality is desirable?
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I suggest we just hard code the currently used values which intend to get
>> >> a prefix: bfd, gold, lld. For all other values, don't add a prefix.
>> >> (PS4 seems to use -fuse-ld=ps4 but it overrides ToolChain::GetLinkerPath,
>> >> thus unaffected)
>> >>
>> >> Thoughts?
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> cfe-dev mailing list
>> >> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>> >>

More information about the cfe-dev mailing list