[PATCH] D12226: [LLD] Support for --unresolved-symbols option in llvm lld for ELF file format

[Shridhar Joshi via llvm-commits]

joshishr added a comment.

> It's better to define enums for these strings and use them in Resolver.cpp


instead of strings.
Yes, enum will be good

> I'm wondering if this is correct. Does --unresolved-symbols really negate


--allow-shlib-undefines?
Not all values of --unresolved-symbols option negate
--allow-shlib-undefines.
But --allow-shlib-undefines option is only for shared libraries
whereas --unresolved-symbols is for relocatable object files, shared
libraries as well as executable.
I have tested behavior of all values of  --unresolved-symbols in
combination with --allow-shlib-undefines and --no-allow-shlib-undefines
with gnu ld and gold.

Implementation of --unresolved-symbols option submitted in lld is in
compliance with gnu ld and gold.

@Simon Atanasyan,

> Is it possible to escape using Clang in the test? Usually build-bots do


not build Clang with LLD
Sure, I will update test case by avoiding clang usage.


http://reviews.llvm.org/D12226