joerg added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33726#774105, @ruiu wrote:
> I'm totally against adding per-OS path knowledge to our linker. Compilers > already know include paths and I don't want to maintain another list of paths > in the linker. Also this can be more confusing than useful when you are doing > cross-linking. The only reason for compilers to maintain that list is for finding crt*.o. They otherwise don't care about the library paths at all. There is no confusion for cross-linking as long as proper sysroot support is used. Which we have been doing on NetBSD for ages. > For all OSes other than NetBSD, LLD works fine with the clang driver as the > driver passes include paths to the linker. I don't see any reason not to do > the same thing for NetBSD. That stands even if the linker has to have a list > of include paths. Sorry, but this is again ignorant and wrong. The very same problem of build systems calling ld directly apply on most other systems. Even then, the list of linker paths is not the only OS-specific knowledge. Things like the DT_RPATH vs DT_RUNPATH mess, init vs init_array all belong into this category. The list goes on. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D33726 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
