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

["H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>]

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Vladimir Simonov <sv@sw.ru> wrote:
> On 01/12/2011 11:32 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Matthias Klose<doko@ubuntu.com> ?wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12.01.2011 19:39, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The more options we add to gcc the more problems
>>>>> in gcc version switch(back and forward) appear for gcc users.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you want to hide it from gcc driver, then you should do what
>>>> Ian suggested to use -B.
>>>
>>> -B is acceptable for somebody who knows where an alternative ld is
>>> installed. It's horrible for anybody else who needs to figure out the
>>> location where an alternative ld is installed. This includes upstreams
>>> and
>>> distribution makers.
>>>
>>
>> That is why I suggested something like "gcc -flinker=ld.bfd|ld.gold"
>>
> Hi all,
>
> H.J., you suggest the same what was already done.
> In Nick's gcc patch. Except gcc option name.
>
> See link in my original e-mail.
> http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/gcccvs/branches/sid/gcc-4.4/debian/patches/gold-and-ld.diff?view=log&pathrev=4512
>
> So. We have:
> 1. "-B" solution is unacceptable for package-based distributions.
> In this case binutils-gold package must be introduced.
> With different install-root. And so on...
> 2. Nick's patch implementing linker switch in gcc.
> The patch may be slightly emended and pushed into gcc.
> 3. Matthias promises to implement the switch into
> binutils. This patch may be pushed into binutils.
>
> Am I correct?
>
> IMO gcc/binutils maintainers opinion is important
> here. What is the right place to do linker switch?
>

Not in binutils.

-- 
H.J.