[LLVMdev] Should llvm include a linker?

[Reid Kleckner]

It's not clear to me that this is worthwhile. Right now LLVM has no linker
dependency, so there's no pressing reason to want to fold LLD into LLVM to
solve a circular dependency. LLD can just depend on LLVM to get LTO working.

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote:

> I've been thinking about how easy it would be to integrate lld into
> the main llvm repo:
>
> 1) Preserve history with: `svnadmin load --parent-dir tools/lld . <
> lld.dump`
> 2) Move lld's target-specific libraries up to `lib/Target`, and
> remaining libraries up to `lib`.
> 3) Move everything from the lld namespace to the llvm namespace.
>
> But would it be valuable?  I'd think that non-C, llvm-based compilers
> like GHC or Rust would have the most to gain.  Anybody else see value
> in it?  Maybe those that maintain the Target directories?
>
> In your response, let's please avoid discussion about coding
> conventions and sanitizer builds.  Assume that's all resolved before
> this integration is considered.
>
> Thanks,
> Greg
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150129/77e58059/attachment.html>