[llvm-dev] LLD status update and performance chart

[Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev]

Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> writes:

> It would depend. If there was a *really* compelling use case it might be
> worth it.
>
> I think what you're saying is basically: the linker is currently much
> simpler and easier to maintain due to the fatal errors on corrupted input,
> globals for the "context", etc.
> We need a compelling use case to give that up, and nothing sufficiently
> compelling has been presented. And currently the focus is on feature parity
> with existing linkers and systems, so naturally we aren't exploring tons of
> new use cases unless our users come to us with requests.

Yes, the is good expansion of my position. To the best of my knowledge
the only two actual code "chunks" in lld that have correspondence in
llvm are the thread pool and the relocation application.

I think everyone agrees on the thread pool, it should be unified and one
day we should be able to use just the c++ standard library.

The relocation application is not clear and the lld one might not even
be in its final form, so it is too early to tell.

Cheers,
Rafael