This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: PATCH: Support --enable-gold=both --with-linker=[bfd|gold]
- From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- To: Roland McGrath <roland at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, binutils at sourceware dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:35:08 -0800
- Subject: Re: PATCH: Support --enable-gold=both --with-linker=[bfd|gold]
- References: <20091102220634.GA21976@lucon.org> <6dc9ffc80911031419k53995085ib14214227979a55e@mail.gmail.com> <20091103222302.8D1AD71C3@magilla.sf.frob.com> <6dc9ffc80911031528v73b398f1s98e76a85baf9f56b@mail.gmail.com> <mcr8wccfjz1.fsf@dhcp-172-17-9-151.mtv.corp.google.com> <20100105211155.584FB1F0@magilla.sf.frob.com>
Roland McGrath <roland@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.
Ian