[swift-dev] Requiring gold linker for Linux targets?

Ryan Lovelett swift-dev at ryan.lovelett.me
Mon May 16 10:03:51 CDT 2016

On Sat, May 14, 2016, at 12:17 PM, William Dillon via swift-dev wrote:
> I'm in favor.  The current disparate use of linkers overly complicates
> the build scripts, and given that BFD seems to be a liability, I think it
> makes sense to transition.  In the interest of full disclosure, I don't
> fully understand all the implications of this change, especially on x86.
> - Will
> > On May 13, 2016, at 6:50 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool via swift-dev <swift-dev at swift.org> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On ARM targets, gold is already required due to a certain bugs in the handling of relocations for those targets.
> > 
> > For other targets, there was a bug exposed in the BFD linker (which is believed to have been fixed in a newer release).
> > 
> > Recently, another change seems to have exposed yet another issue with linking on x86 targets.
> > 
> > Given the frequency with which issues occurring with the BFD linker, is it reasonable to say that building swift requires the gold linker?  To the previous three issues, I believe that two of them were worked around with the approach of using gold.  So, there is some precedent to that approach.  Furthermore, this idea has been brought up before.
> > 
> > Im hoping that this can spark a thread which can come up to some conclusion to whether it is reasonable to expect that the linux builds would use gold for the foreseeable future.

Count me in favor of this as well.

> > 
> > -- 
> > Saleem Abdulrasool
> > compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
> > _______________________________________________
> > swift-dev mailing list
> > swift-dev at swift.org
> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev
> _______________________________________________
> swift-dev mailing list
> swift-dev at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev

More information about the swift-dev mailing list