[llvm-dev] [RFC] Adding a new option to lld to make it easy to maintain compatibility with other linkers

[Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev]

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 10:51 AM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:20 PM Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 7:30 PM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I believe this will report an error on more command-lines than a
>>> traditional linker would fail to link. E.g.:
>>>   ld.lld foo.o A.a B.a A.a B.a
>>> That "should" work fine if the libs are circularly-dependent, as long as
>>> there's only a 1-level cycle. I've seen that sort of construct used a fair
>>> amount, and while the start-group/end-group flags are pretty clearly a
>>> superior option, but are not universally used.
>>>
>>
>> Actually it won't report an error for that command line. We (and perhaps
>> other linkers as well) don't do anything special for files that happen to
>> be passed to a linker more than once, so the first A.a and second A.a are
>> handled as different files.
>>
>
> But if B.a requires pulling in an object from A.a, LLD will pull it from
> the _first_ A.a on the command-line, and then, if this flag is specified,
> report an error due to the incorrect ordering of dependencies. (Whereas GNU
> ld will pull it from the _second_ A.a and succeed linking.)
>

Ahh, that's true. I don't think that's a serious issue, but that's indeed
something that this feature would report as a false positive.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180405/bc81104e/attachment.html>