jrtc27 added a comment. In D74704#1878921 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74704#1878921>, @lenary wrote:
> I am worried about the interaction between `-fuse-ld=lld` and linker > relaxation (which is not supported by LLD, as I understand it) > > 1. clang could ignore `-fuse-ld=lld` when linker relaxation is enabled > 2. clang could ignore (disable) linker relaxation if `-fuse-ld=lld` is used > > At the very least, a warning of some kind should be emitted if linker > relaxation is combined with `-fuse-ld=lld`. This isn't a new problem. The Linux and FreeBSD toolchains already support -fuse-ld=lld properly, it's just the bare metal one that didn't. People also generally don't include -fuse-ld=lld in CFLAGS, only LDFLAGS, and there's no need to include -mno-relax in LDFLAGS, so I suspect you wouldn't catch many issues. These days (https://reviews.llvm.org/D71820), LLD will give you an informative error (rather than silently mis-linking) if you forget -mno-relax. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D74704/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D74704 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
