Default to integrated rust-lld linker for UEFI targets
#58976
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
r? @varkor (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors: r+ |
|
📌 Commit 876258b has been approved by |
|
🌲 The tree is currently closed for pull requests below priority 500, this pull request will be tested once the tree is reopened |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
I don't have any preferences, I am fine with either. I am a bit confused why a linker needs to be bundled, but I guess it makes life easier. Regardless, it would be cool to include the justification from your PR in the commit message, so Thanks a lot for getting back on this! |
|
I think bors adds the PR description to the merge commit, so it should show up in |
kennytm
added a commit
to kennytm/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 11, 2019
Default to integrated `rust-lld` linker for UEFI targets The `x86_64-unknown-uefi` target was added in rust-lang#56769 with the linker defaulting to `lld-link`. This means that a system linker with that name is required for linking. I think defaulting to `rust-lld`, which is shipped with Rust, is a better default for the following reasons: - Most systems don't have `lld-link` installed, so it forces users to install it first. - The naming of LLD executables is not standarized, so users often need to create an additional symlink before things work. For example, on Ubuntu `apt install lld` leads to an executable named `lld-link-6.0`. - We already default to `rust-lld` for [many targets](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=rust-lld&type=), including embedded and WASM targets, so doing the same for UEFI crates seems consistent to me. (It even seems like `x86_64-unknown-uefi` is the [only target](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/search?q=lld-link&unscoped_q=lld-link) that uses `lld-link`.) cc @dvdhrm who added the target and @KKK669 who [proposed to use `rust-lld`](rust-lang#56769 (comment)).
Mark-Simulacrum
added a commit
to Mark-Simulacrum/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 14, 2019
Default to integrated `rust-lld` linker for UEFI targets The `x86_64-unknown-uefi` target was added in rust-lang#56769 with the linker defaulting to `lld-link`. This means that a system linker with that name is required for linking. I think defaulting to `rust-lld`, which is shipped with Rust, is a better default for the following reasons: - Most systems don't have `lld-link` installed, so it forces users to install it first. - The naming of LLD executables is not standarized, so users often need to create an additional symlink before things work. For example, on Ubuntu `apt install lld` leads to an executable named `lld-link-6.0`. - We already default to `rust-lld` for [many targets](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=rust-lld&type=), including embedded and WASM targets, so doing the same for UEFI crates seems consistent to me. (It even seems like `x86_64-unknown-uefi` is the [only target](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/search?q=lld-link&unscoped_q=lld-link) that uses `lld-link`.) cc @dvdhrm who added the target and @KKK669 who [proposed to use `rust-lld`](rust-lang#56769 (comment)).
kennytm
added a commit
to kennytm/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 15, 2019
Default to integrated `rust-lld` linker for UEFI targets The `x86_64-unknown-uefi` target was added in rust-lang#56769 with the linker defaulting to `lld-link`. This means that a system linker with that name is required for linking. I think defaulting to `rust-lld`, which is shipped with Rust, is a better default for the following reasons: - Most systems don't have `lld-link` installed, so it forces users to install it first. - The naming of LLD executables is not standarized, so users often need to create an additional symlink before things work. For example, on Ubuntu `apt install lld` leads to an executable named `lld-link-6.0`. - We already default to `rust-lld` for [many targets](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=rust-lld&type=), including embedded and WASM targets, so doing the same for UEFI crates seems consistent to me. (It even seems like `x86_64-unknown-uefi` is the [only target](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/search?q=lld-link&unscoped_q=lld-link) that uses `lld-link`.) cc @dvdhrm who added the target and @KKK669 who [proposed to use `rust-lld`](rust-lang#56769 (comment)).
kennytm
added a commit
to kennytm/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 16, 2019
Default to integrated `rust-lld` linker for UEFI targets The `x86_64-unknown-uefi` target was added in rust-lang#56769 with the linker defaulting to `lld-link`. This means that a system linker with that name is required for linking. I think defaulting to `rust-lld`, which is shipped with Rust, is a better default for the following reasons: - Most systems don't have `lld-link` installed, so it forces users to install it first. - The naming of LLD executables is not standarized, so users often need to create an additional symlink before things work. For example, on Ubuntu `apt install lld` leads to an executable named `lld-link-6.0`. - We already default to `rust-lld` for [many targets](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=rust-lld&type=), including embedded and WASM targets, so doing the same for UEFI crates seems consistent to me. (It even seems like `x86_64-unknown-uefi` is the [only target](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/search?q=lld-link&unscoped_q=lld-link) that uses `lld-link`.) cc @dvdhrm who added the target and @KKK669 who [proposed to use `rust-lld`](rust-lang#56769 (comment)).
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 16, 2019
Rollup of 37 pull requests Successful merges: - #58854 (appveyor: Use VS2017 for all our images) - #58855 (std: Spin for a global malloc lock on wasm32) - #58873 (Fix "Auto-hide item methods documentation" setting) - #58901 (Change `std::fs::copy` to use `copyfile` on MacOS and iOS) - #58933 (Move alloc::prelude::* to alloc::prelude::v1, make alloc a subset of std) - #58938 (core: ensure VaList passes improper_ctypes lint) - #58941 (MIPS: add r6 support) - #58949 (SGX target: Expose thread id function in os module) - #58959 (Add release notes for PR #56243) - #58976 (Default to integrated `rust-lld` linker for UEFI targets) - #59009 (Fix SGX implementations of read/write_vectored.) - #59025 (Fix generic argument lookup for Self) - #59036 (Fix ICE in MIR pretty printing) - #59037 (Avoid some common false positives in intra doc link checking) - #59072 (we can now skip should_panic tests with the libtest harness) - #59079 (add suggestions to invalid macro item error) - #59082 (A few improvements to comments in user-facing crates) - #59102 (Consistent naming for duration_float methods and additional f32 methods) - #59118 (rustc: fix ICE when trait alias has bare Self) - #59139 (Unregress using scalar unions in constants.) - #59146 (Suggest return lifetime when there's only one named lifetime) - #59147 (Make std time tests more robust for platform differences) - #59152 (Stabilize Range*::contains.) - #59156 ([wg-async-await] Add regression test for #55809.) - #59158 (Revert "Don't generate minification variable if minification disabled") - #59169 (Add `-Z allow_features=...` flag) - #59173 (bootstrap: Default to a sensible llvm-suffix.) - #59175 (Don't run test launching `echo` since that doesn't exist on Windows) - #59180 (Use try blocks in rustc_codegen_ssa) - #59185 (No old chestnuts in iter::repeat docs) - #59201 (Remove restriction on isize/usize in repr(simd)) - #59204 (Output diagnostic information for rustdoc) - #59206 (Improved test output) - #59208 (Reduce a Code Repetition Related to Bit Operation) - #59212 (Add x86_64 musl host to the manifest) - #59221 (Option and Result: Add references to documentation of as_ref and as_mut) - #59231 (Stabilize Option::copied)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The
x86_64-unknown-uefitarget was added in #56769 with the linker defaulting tolld-link. This means that a system linker with that name is required for linking.I think defaulting to
rust-lld, which is shipped with Rust, is a better default for the following reasons:lld-linkinstalled, so it forces users to install it first.apt install lldleads to an executable namedlld-link-6.0.rust-lldfor many targets, including embedded and WASM targets, so doing the same for UEFI crates seems consistent to me. (It even seems likex86_64-unknown-uefiis the only target that useslld-link.)cc @dvdhrm who added the target and @KKK669 who proposed to use
rust-lld.