"H.J. Lu" <hjl.to...@gmail.com> writes: > 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.
The issue can be addressed with symlinks. Of course, if we have a way to tell gcc the linker to use, by name, at runtime, that will also work. Ian
