MaskRay requested changes to this revision. MaskRay added a comment. This revision now requires changes to proceed.
Thanks to @aganea for working on this. I agree that lld/ELF is not ready for library usage. So far the arguments have always been "the library usage is easy since lld headers happen to be exposed", but do not justify that it should be done this way. Most use cases can be replaced with spawning a new process. For lld/ELF, the library usage is unsupported and may happen to work for some use cases. But please move away from the library usage, or expect that it may break at any time, and don't use "it worked for some time for us" as an argument for reverts like https://reviews.llvm.org/D119257 If anything needs to be reverted, the original change adding lld::elf::link should be reverted instead. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D119257/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D119257 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
