[PATCH v3 17/18] PR ld/24600: BFD: Add general linker support for fake archives

[Jan Beulich]

On 13.01.2026 16:12, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2026, Jan Beulich wrote:
> 
>>>> Overall I feel like the underlying idea of "file collections" (plus why /
>>>> where / when it's useful) isn't explained sufficiently in the description.
>>>> Maybe that would become more clear by reading the next patch, but I think
>>>> the patch here would best be self-contained.
>>>
>>>  I'm not sure what else can be added here.  The change heading already 
>>> mentions that this is for the linker (I've now added "linker" for clarity 
>>> in a reference to symbol resolution in the first sentence as well) and the 
>>> description overall says that a collection of files supplied via a call to 
>>> `bfd_openr_fake_archive' will be treated by the BFD linker as if they were 
>>> archive members.
>>>
>>>  It then goes on to explain some implementation details.
>>>
>>>  If you find anything particularly unclear, then please point me there.
>>
>> I can only repeat that I'm missing any information on when / where this is
>> actually useful (and why using an archive in the same situation would be
>> undesirable / impossible). Without such information, I fear I'm not feeling
>> in the position to approve respective changes. (Which of course doesn't
>> mean I would NAK them; another maintainer might still do the review and
>> give their okay.)
> 
>  It's useful where the caller of `bfd_openr_fake_archive' wants to treat a 
> collection of files as if they were an archive, in a link.

And what gets in the way of actually making them into an archive, when
"as if an archive" is wanted?

>  I don't suppose you want me to explain here how archives work in a link 
> as opposed to individual object files, as this is covered by our manual 
> and/or various books, do you?  And also I don't think it's a good idea to 
> set a usage policy by drawing potential use cases in a commit description.

Indeed, no, and no, not a policy, but possibly an example.

>  I maintain that the new API is sufficiently documented and, as I say, if 
> you think it's missing a detail, then I'll be happy to fill it in, but I'm 
> unaware of any such detail.

That's orthogonal.

Jan