On 25 Jul 2012, at 10:22, Luba Tang wrote: > Let me explain the status of MCLinker. > MCLinker now is one of the standard system linkers in Android system. > https://android.googlesource.com/platform/frameworks/compile/mclinker
It looks like MCLinker has made a lot of progress since I last checked. > Since there are many practical issues in ELF system (some of them are > undocumented :'( ), I think MCLinker could be said as a linker who is > robust enough to handle with wrapped symbols, segments, .group section, > exception, DWRAF, and many many ELF unique features. :) Indeed. How do you plan on integrating modern features like LTO into MCLinker? Can you deal with an atom-based model for efficient code locality? > In our plan, we will get rid of LLVM in this September. At that time, > MCLinker wil be able to handle archives, and has some basic support for > link script. What does 'get rid of LLVM' mean in this context? > We have promised BSD systems have higher priority than Linux systems, and > we will keep our promise. That's also great. The FreeBSD Foundation has some funding set aside for linker work, but currently nothing concrete to spend it on, so I'd strongly invite people to submit project proposals in this area. > BTW, I think llvm-config is necessary for every LLVM-based project. If it > will not be in BSD system, I think we can negotiate an approach to get rid > of it. > Just like what Android did. I think the rationale for not having it in the base system is sensible: we don't want things from outside the base system to link against the LLVM from the base system. When other things are imported, we will most likely replace their own build system (as we do with LLVM itself) and so can hard code the location of the LLVM that they link against. David_______________________________________________ freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-toolchain To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-toolchain-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
