This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: forcing the linker to be a particular one (i.e. gold vs bfd)

Vladimir Simonov <> writes:

> 3. What for do we need --enable-gold in and
> gcc_cv_gold/ORIGINAL_GOLD_FOR_TARGET,etc. in gcc/, gcc/
> For "Single tree build"?
> Is this mode used widely? As I understand the most of people use separate
> binutils/gcc build. In separate build default linker is specified
> via binutils configure options. So we need not explicit gold support
> in gcc's configure process.
> Is "Single tree build" mode support important for gold developers?

Single tree build mode is not important for gold developers, at least
not for me.

> 5. Ones we need to pass some options to collect2, what do you think
> about -Wc,OPTIONS_FOR_COLLECT2 interface into gcc? Like
> it is for -Wa/-Wl. "c" in -Wc means collect, may be -Wt is better
> to avoid confusion with "C" as language.

I don't see a need for a special way to pass options to collect2.  -Wl
will pass options to collect2 just fine.  If there is some need, it
should not be -Wc, as libtool uses that to pass options to the compiler.

I don't personally care too much about this issue.  At Google we just
install GNU ld in a different directory under the name "ld", and pass a
-B option to gcc if we want to use it.  That approach doesn't require
any changes to any tools.  I'm not opposed to installing the linkers
under different names and coming up with some way to tell the compiler
which linker to use, I just don't personally care about it all that


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]