[llvm-dev] LLD status update and performance chart

[Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev]

> As to a JIT linker, I once wrote a small JIT C compiler which creates an
> object file in memory and then jump to the entry point of the file after
> relocating it in memory. From that experience (and my experience of LLD),
> I'd think JIT linker is much easier to write than static linkers, because
> JIT linkers don't need to interact with dynamic linkers. Static linkers
> have to create data that will be interpreted by the dynamic linker, and
> that's one of the most complicated things in LLD (the other is the linker
> script, but that's a different story.) So I don't expect that there are
> many things that we can share between JIT linkers and static linkers. Of
> course there may be something that I don't know well about JIT, but that's
> my feeling at this moment.

My feeling exactly. The existing JIT hurts itself by producing full .o
files and then interpreting them. Even with that design it is not clear
that we could reasonably share code. If we are wrong, hey, awesome, send
the patch.

Cheers,
Rafael