[LLVMdev] Should llvm include a linker? (original) (raw)

Reid Kleckner rnk at google.com
Thu Jan 29 10:26:46 PST 2015

It's not clear to me that this is worthwhile. Right now LLVM has no linker dependency, so there's no pressing reason to want to fold LLD into LLVM to solve a circular dependency. LLD can just depend on LLVM to get LTO working.

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote:

I've been thinking about how easy it would be to integrate lld into the main llvm repo:

1) Preserve history with: svnadmin load --parent-dir tools/lld . <_ _lld.dump 2) Move lld's target-specific libraries up to lib/Target, and remaining libraries up to lib. 3) Move everything from the lld namespace to the llvm namespace. But would it be valuable? I'd think that non-C, llvm-based compilers like GHC or Rust would have the most to gain. Anybody else see value in it? Maybe those that maintain the Target directories? In your response, let's please avoid discussion about coding conventions and sanitizer builds. Assume that's all resolved before this integration is considered. Thanks, Greg

LLVM Developers mailing list LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150129/77e58059/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list