On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> wrote: > Roland McGrath <rol...@redhat.com> writes: > >>> I'm still not entirely convinced that this is the way to go. It seems >>> to me that ideally one wants to be able to select the linker at >>> runtime. I don't see how this patch supports that. What am I >>> missing? >> >> It covers the first step by letting you run "ld.bfd" or "ld.gold" to >> choose. Having the two binaries installed by those names is a good start >> and seems likely to be part of how any fancier plan would work, so why not >> start there? > > Mainly because an alternative is to install them in subdirectories > with the name ld. Then gcc can run them directly using a -B option. > I don't know which approach is best. >
Plugin only works with gold. So I configured my gcc with -with-plugin-ld=ld.gold If both linkers have the same name, it will be harder to use ld by default and use gold only for plugin. -- H.J.
