[llvm-dev] Please dogfood LLD

[Carsten Mattner via llvm-dev]

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Ed Maste <emaste at freebsd.org> wrote:

> Note that even if/when we get changes incorporated into libtool it
> will still take a long time for the change to appear in new releases
> of software packages using libtool. A downstream patch to the libtool
> package in various operating systems or distributions doesn't really
> help that much for the same reason.

AFAIU, systems where lld is the default ld are limited right
now and can temporarily carry a minimally modified libtool.
That way systems which have bfd or gold as default ld, which is
most of the FOSS operating systems out there, won't notice any
disturbance before, during or after libtool gets to know lld.
I'm probably overlooking something but it looks like classical
downstream integration patching due to the fact that it may
take a while to get upstream or be rejected for non-technical
reasons.

What am I missing?

I've been using ldd for building various code bases with autotools
and libtool scripting, and must have been lucky to not run into
the problem yet. I'll keep an eye out for libtool errors.

> For the FreeBSD ports tree the most likely workaround would be some
> common sed magic to fix libtool's tests, along with a setting in
> (hundreds of) individual port Makefiles to apply it on a case-by-case
> basis.

If FreeBSD's libtool is patched to be aware of the base ld=lld,
would this still be true?