Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2016 22:30:20 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org" <freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Update on using LLVM's lld linker in the FreeBSD base system Message-ID: <CANCZdfqEYTBZV3JkW=KC7s5wquf3Q=aLnFU_6AbD_V5SxqHJiA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAPyFy2AN7iJ1L7gM=qjsBq8_NKTA-t-u-GSk5%2B-pWX%2B_V5ztzQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAPyFy2D-j6djHHiXk9D3dmj5xXjKGgoOEnUK7rHvbc=Hc28dxA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPyFy2AN7iJ1L7gM=qjsBq8_NKTA-t-u-GSk5%2B-pWX%2B_V5ztzQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANCZdfqEYTBZV3JkW=KC7s5wquf3Q=aLnFU_6AbD_V5SxqHJiA>