[llvm-dev] [lld] Flavour option purpose

[Jonathan Roelofs via llvm-dev]

On 11/1/17 10:29 AM, N via llvm-dev wrote:
> Thank you for your answers.
> 
> Indeed, Clang is universal, but only until one needs to pass some commands to the linker which are not
> automatically passed by the driver. Then we are back to the same problem.

Clang and GCC both support the `-Wl,` and `-Xlinker` flags...


Jon

> 
> In my opinion, it would be great if lld had a unified, GNU-like interface. Of course, if nobody else is interested,
> it's probably not even worth it drafting an RFC. :(
> 
>> On 27 Oct 2017, at 01:09, James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote:
>>
>> I mean, there is such a universal driver -- it's called "clang".
>>
>>
>> On Oct 26, 2017 5:31 PM, "Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> Martell recently added "ld64.lld" as a name for the Darwin driver.
>>
>> As to why there's no driver that provides a unified command line arguments, I can't speak for other people. But no one seems to have been interested in it enough to actually invent and implement a set of unified command line arguments.
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:20 PM, N <scandium at me.com> wrote:
>>> I think using ld.lld or lld-link is preferred way over "lld -flavor gnu" or "lld -flavor link".
>>
>> -flavor seems to be still actively used in Clang… By the the way, there seems to be no special
>> command name for Darwin targets, so ld.lld (incorrectly) invokes the ELF linker there
>> (see https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34792#c1)
>>
>> Regardless, I would be interested in hearing the answer to the rest of the questions.
>>
>>> On 26 Oct 2017, at 23:10, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The -flavor option exists mostly for historical reasons. I think using ld.lld or lld-link is preferred way over "lld -flavor gnu" or "lld -flavor link".
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:06 PM, N via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> According to lld/docs/Driver.rst, Flavor command line option determines the style of lld command-line interface when invoked.
>>>
>>> However, it looks like this option also determines the set of supported targets we are linking for. For example, lld -flavor gnu
>>> cannot link mach-o binaries, and could not link PE binaries either (well, not until rL312926).
>>>
>>> Is this really intended by the design of lld? It looks the flavours are merely legacy compatibility shims, but then why is there no
>>> universal lld driver that is able to link binary for any platform using a unified CLI?
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> 

-- 
Jon Roelofs
jonathan at codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded / Siemens