[lld] r249520 - Don't create dynamic relocations for weak undefined symbols.

[Rui Ueyama via llvm-commits]

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com
> wrote:

> > Is it too early to compare LLD to GNU ld or gold? I assume that LLD
> produces
> > much larger executables than those because we don't eliminate duplicate
> > comdats yet, so the answer is yes. Right? (If we generate larger
> > executables, it's naturally slower than those because we are handling
> more
> > data.)
>
> We can start to have an idea. The data I got from linking clang is
>
> gold:
>  0.995407405 seconds time elapsed
>  binary is 64 370 232 bytes long
>
> lld:
>  0.487959495 seconds time elapsed
>  binary is 92 373 304 bytes long
>
> So it looks like this will be a good linker :-)
>

That's *really* good number. Not only LLD is already faster than gold, but
is two times faster than that? That's much better than I thought!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20151007/f7f24f4e/attachment.html>