On 3/28/23 11:57 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
As I have indicated before, I am strongly in favor of these changes. However, using LLD with X86 and GNU ld with ARM is not what I would like to see here: not only is it a bad idea for a single toolchain definition to deviate in this manner between architectures, I also think that having the ability to use LLD for ARM would be nice in itself, as it removes the need for cross toolchains entirely, lowering the bar for contributors to ensure that their changes do not regress other architectures. And there are some differences related to BTI that could be interesting as well.
I agree, it's not ideal. My knowledge of linker issues is relatively limited at the moment, which is why I decided not to use LLD when I saw it was failing.
I can spend some time learning about it and send out a v3 with LLD enabled for ARM.
-- Rebecca Cran -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#102054): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/102054 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/97910990/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
