> 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.
I think it keeps things simplest for humans to understand if the actual binaries are available as ld.bfd and ld.gold. If you then want some obscure directory names containing an "ld" for gcc's use, then make those symlinks. Personally, I think -Wl,--gold (via $(bindir)/ld being a wrapper script) is nicer than -B/usr/libexec/binutils/gold/ or whatnot. Thanks, Roland
