From owner-freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org Tue Aug 2 04:30:22 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-toolchain@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22657BACE95 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 04:30:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-io0-x234.google.com (mail-io0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF718130C for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 04:30:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: by mail-io0-x234.google.com with SMTP id 38so202148721iol.0 for ; Mon, 01 Aug 2016 21:30:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=4M+Hsmae1fapGBUUHByTwlpZpX4UQBRxTzXIf3uImKg=; b=QxrNFkcvyGDicB8S5szOhgQTAgic/vVkFGjrbOkALFmMC3/8KyGeRy03kqr/M12liO hRjnyAcWSDnG7zkuiFWRj8NZsARBNN9yRZpBiN4CtyopRsE/9Z6CMp3t5lK0BGznQeKm VOgV4E9wrEDTA3vjRr9K2qtbcaxi2BRtv/ZAIzOOApZSupYdJs+sUYfiMvJMVDp6WSu3 olKNJS+GeVkiZ40tx9KFtN7u5orTaJzh0HScnEJ7yPOeZuYTE8dZRt1DCeBuXFvgCzZF 8tOicfzhCEO74WKiugiPIwsbNLEZepKkjtEmM5vZ4jStKgW3FmIbCXysevbgQprN16lo jKZg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4M+Hsmae1fapGBUUHByTwlpZpX4UQBRxTzXIf3uImKg=; b=Q38EGlvBO/W7cFbXoIsByPHfAb3vCkD2KHFfvHnyuoppr8cWC7mQqnDskyDxtFLq4s g9I2e4z4KzndCAhFpq1SBZwhX1NifQ/+/kE43ksJm9AS5VESVB65ZDJ+lgz9H14nziCC GPH+aaKNu/mfQ28Gw4nuTO92TRP8IllWHIOUEa7+e/J7mgClVn+LORhVEgCVdfMImErd 4wO71DobB4s2Bmdj/L/2m6wun0+atsYyoEloDcTL2uAQuRQFiDtHoSgeooP97XG6VPof C117/d5xfG9/mFRrBxBRJiaUoeDxugA1G+jZNLc7N2xAGMKvLGgcBOQyPF2CXeqyLrdW xE8Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AEkooutgteVU1O+QGstREQuYloPD2c7WgyJrWkZ4FSGyqD6nAJFl7U2uYAtAM0uP3tCvfY4dCWfD7snLIPI+6Q== X-Received: by 10.107.40.133 with SMTP id o127mr57334326ioo.183.1470112221069; Mon, 01 Aug 2016 21:30:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: wlosh@bsdimp.com Received: by 10.79.137.131 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 21:30:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [69.53.245.200] In-Reply-To: References: From: Warner Losh Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2016 22:30:20 -0600 X-Google-Sender-Auth: -AkhV8SlSV95Qhwcpc0bWIR-XnU Message-ID: Subject: Re: Update on using LLVM's lld linker in the FreeBSD base system To: Ed Maste Cc: "freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-BeenThere: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Maintenance of FreeBSD's integrated toolchain List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 04:30:22 -0000 >> Generally, I like it though. My concerns are mostly with ports and gcc plans. >> Though it isn't coupled to gcc, I'd suggest that we want to have a joint plan >> for both before we get out the axes. Note this is purely a timing argument, >> not whether to get them out, just when :) > > Yes, fully agree. I want to have lld available as soon as is feasible, > but have no intention of trying to remove old GNU ld or GCC 4.2 until > a viable path forward exists for all architectures. Agreed. We don't have to have a plan for removal before moving forward on lld. Warner