On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:55 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger via Phabricator < revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
> 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. That's not what clang is trying to do for all Unix-like systems (except NetBSD due to the bug), right? The compiler driver actually passes library paths to the linker. If you think that is wrong, you should make a change to stop doing that on all systems. I don't see a reason to not do this only on NetBSD. > 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
