[llvm-dev] ld.bfd and LLVMgold.so

[Teresa Johnson via llvm-dev]

Forking this from a discussion here:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-October/105601.html

It looks like the recent 2.26 versions of ld.bfd has enabled usage of
ld.bfd with LLVMgold.so. This combination caused some failures when trying
to bootstrap clang with ThinLTO, when ld.bfd was inadvertently used instead
of ld.gold (which took awhile to reproduce until we tracked down the
difference in linkers being used). The above thread has a small reproducer,
which turns out to be an issue with LTO as well (not specific to ThinLTO).
It is probably a bug I should file against ld.bfd.

A few general questions:

The LLVM documentation at http://llvm.org/docs/GoldPlugin.html indicates:
   "LTO support on Linux systems requires that you use the gold linker
which supports LTO via plugins"
Should this be updated?

Is the usage of LLVMgold.so with ld.bfd a combination being tested by any
bots? Should it be?

Thanks,
Teresa

-- 
Teresa Johnson |  Software Engineer |  tejohnson at google.com |  408-460-2413
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20161004/9a45d744/attachment.html>