[llvm-dev] LLD status update and performance chart
Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Dec 16 10:15:58 PST 2016
I talked several people and found that this is more like a communication
issue rather than a technical/philosophical issue. I believe communication
problems won't solve themselves. As a person who is on the owners file of
LLD, I think I need to say something about that issue. Also, I guess people
who were just watching this thread wondered why my happy pre-holiday status
report suddenly turned into a heated discussion, and they are probably
still wondering what's wrong with LLD. I want to address that, too.
So, as a project, there is no anti-library policy in LLD. I think this is
the misunderstanding one side had. We already provide main-as-a-library
feature so that you can embed the linker to your program. We as a project
welcome other ideas to export linker features at a well-defined boundary.
For example, I think abstracting the file system access so that you can
hook file operations could be a well-defined, useful API for those who want
to do in-memory linking (I expressed that opinion already in this thread).
Just like LLVM, we won't guarantee API compatibility between releases, and
we are unlikely to be able to expose deep internals of the linker, but as
long as you think you found a reasonable coarse API boundary, there should
be nothing preventing you from bringing that to the table.
On the other hand, as far as I talked, no one who is on the "library" side
requested LLD expose deep internals. This is the misunderstanding the other
side had. If we as a project said that LLD should not support any library
interface at all, they would be upset and speak out loudly, but again,
that's not a project policy.
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see no serious conflicts here. The
conflict I saw in the thread is I believe superficial, and I strongly
believe that it could have been addressed calmly and nicely if we have used
more words to explain thoughts instead of small number of strong words.
Hope this helps.
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 1:40 AM, George Rimar via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >I am on PTO, so slow to respond.
> >Some items that are left:
> >* Debug fission
> >* Single file debug fission
> >* Range extension thunks
> >* All of freebsd links and works
> >* Very good performance when all that is in
> Looks we have initial version of debug fusion implemented.
> r289790, r289810 commits from yesterday did the rest of main job I believe.
> I do not know what is "Single file debug fission" ? (quick googling gives
> nothing and I never heard about that before I think)
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev