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 10:04 AM, Vladimir Simonov <sv@sw.ru> wrote:
> On 01/12/2011 08:44 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Vladimir Simonov<sv@sw.ru> ?wrote:
>>>
>>> 2.2 Leave gcc untouched and do the same work in binutils.
>>> If --enable-gold specified in binutils configure options we create
>>> simple wrapper which will strip --use-ld=LINKER_NAME from linker
>>> options and call appropriate linker. Default linker is defined
>>> by configure options. The wrapper is installed as ld.
>>> The wrapper code should be located in gold directory and built
>>> (and installed as ld) if "make" visits gold directory.
>>>
>>> Both have pro and contra. 2.2 - decreases binutils install size,
>>> leaves gcc untouched but adds additional "exec" during link process.
>>>
>>> I can try to do any.
>>> What do you think which is better?
>>>
>>
>> I don't think we should go with 2.2. ?GCC driver already sets
>>
>> COLLECT_GCC=/usr/gcc-4.6/bin/gcc
>>
>> COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/gcc-4.6/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.6.0/lto-wrapper
>> COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-c' '-v' '-mtune=generic' '-march=x86-64'
>>
>> Why not add
>>
>> COLLECT_LINKER=..............
>>
>> which can be set by "gcc -flinker=ld.gold|ld.bfd"?
>>
>
> IMO duality in linker implementation should be hidden
> from gcc as much as possible. Right now in plain gcc sources
> we already have:
> [gcc-4.5.2]$ grep -i -E "\<gold\>|_gold" * -r|wc -l
> 706
>
> 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.

-- 
H.J.