MaskRay added a comment. I read your https://blog.netbsd.org/tnf/entry/the_first_report_on_lld :) The chapter "Handling of indirect shared library dependencies" summarizes the transitive DT_NEEDED problem well.
But do we have a convincing list of applications that really need this option to link? According my understanding, lld doesn't try to be fully ld.bfd compatible. It only implements reasonable ld.bfd features that are still used a lot. lld is enabled on FreeBSD and is capable to link nearly all applications (with ~10 exceptions; but nothing uses --copy-dt-needed-entries) (https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23214#c59) gold doesn't support `--copy-dt-needed-entries` https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=blob;hb=b09e83c1f814a6f218519abeb94aaf45869ba03c;f=gold/object.cc#l3236 It doesn't support `--rpath-link` either. In the article, > However, GNU gold, LLD and newer versions of GNU ld use different logic and > permit only symbols provided by the direct dependencies. I just checked that ld.bfd doesn't enable this option by default. It looks like a historical remnant then :) Repository: rLLD LLVM Linker CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D56647/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D56647 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
