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

[Rui Ueyama via llvm-commits]

If you disable threads, seems like the answer is yes (but I didn't try that
yet). LLD does not support TLS-related relocations yet, so it cannot link
multi-threaded programs.

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:48 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Rafael Espíndola <
> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> 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 :-)
>>
>
> Were these numbers hot/cold, on an SSD?
>
> So if I don't care much about file size - does lld self host LLVM? Perhaps
> that'd be an improvement for development if it saves me link time...
>
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Rafael
>> _______________________________________________
>> llvm-commits mailing list
>> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20151007/4906d618/attachment.html>