[PATCH] D114186: [lld][CMake] Add LLD_DEFAULT_NOSTART_STOP_GC

[Tom Stellard via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

tstellar added a comment.

In D114186#3159453 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D114186#3159453>, @MaskRay wrote:

> In D114186#3159389 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D114186#3159389>, @tstellar wrote:
>
>> @MaskRay This patch needs to change the default behavior to what it was prior to 6d2d3bd0a61f5fc7fd9f61f48bc30e9ca77cc619 <https://reviews.llvm.org/rG6d2d3bd0a61f5fc7fd9f61f48bc30e9ca77cc619>.  It does not look to me like the patch does this.  If I am wrong, please explain why.
>>
>> We've been discussing this for too long already and need a conclusion.  In the release/13.x, I'm planning to revert 6d2d3bd0a61f5fc7fd9f61f48bc30e9ca77cc619 <https://reviews.llvm.org/rG6d2d3bd0a61f5fc7fd9f61f48bc30e9ca77cc619> since we don't have any other proposed fix.
>
> The conclusion is that FreeBSD has taken care of this, or at least, I don't think 6d2d3bd0a61f5fc7fd9f61f48bc30e9ca77cc619 <https://reviews.llvm.org/rG6d2d3bd0a61f5fc7fd9f61f48bc30e9ca77cc619> would cause lasting harm to them.
>
> I have repeatedly explained that the issue is specific to very few packages (some Gentoo GCC/Clang -fuse-ld=lld 13.0.0 folks told me their system works fine; well, I'd be happy to know if they could find another package (like ldc) which will have the similar problem)
> If FreeBSD does want to be conservative, they can either add -z start-stop-gc to their system, as @emaste told me in ~April, or apply this CMake patch to their ports and set the CMake variable.
>
> Reverting 6d2d3bd0a61f5fc7fd9f61f48bc30e9ca77cc619 <https://reviews.llvm.org/rG6d2d3bd0a61f5fc7fd9f61f48bc30e9ca77cc619> would cause lasting harm to instrumentation users.
>
>> If we can't get a compromise patch approved by Thursday, I'm going to revert 6d2d3bd0a61f5fc7fd9f61f48bc30e9ca77cc619 <https://reviews.llvm.org/rG6d2d3bd0a61f5fc7fd9f61f48bc30e9ca77cc619> in main too.  As I mentioned on the other thread, the idea behind 6d2d3bd0a61f5fc7fd9f61f48bc30e9ca77cc619 <https://reviews.llvm.org/rG6d2d3bd0a61f5fc7fd9f61f48bc30e9ca77cc619> was NAK'd, but it was committed anyway.  We need to follow community process around code review and revert back to the original behavior and then discuss the next steps afterwards.
>
> I think you missed many replies from me explaining why reverting the 7-month old change would not do anything good. Please read my replies.

I'm asking for the behavior to be changed back, because 6d2d3bd0a61f5fc7fd9f61f48bc30e9ca77cc619 <https://reviews.llvm.org/rG6d2d3bd0a61f5fc7fd9f61f48bc30e9ca77cc619> goes against the LLVM developer policy.    If you want to make a technical argument about why 6d2d3bd0a61f5fc7fd9f61f48bc30e9ca77cc619 <https://reviews.llvm.org/rG6d2d3bd0a61f5fc7fd9f61f48bc30e9ca77cc619> should stay in, then you need to convince @jrtc27 and others who object to this change to drop their objections and state that on one of the reviews.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D114186/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D114186