I stopped into IRC to ask about a problem I've been having using Clang in
conjunction with LLD to compile and link for an embedded project on
Cortex-M ARM processor.
First, I am able to separately compile with a call to clang and link with
a call to lld, but I cannot use clang to link using lld using the
-fuse-ld=lld flag. I have the output from `clang -v -fuse-ld=lld -target
arm-none-eabi main.c -o main` here , where calling `clang -target
arm-none-eabi -c main.c -o main.o` and `ld.lld main.o -o main` work fine.
Doing the compiling and linking for my host computer works just fine using
-fuse-ld=lld, and I verified that it is using LLD by checking the .comments
section in the generated elf.
For that triple, Clang seems to be calling into GCC driver
(/usr/bin/arm-none-eabi-gcc) for linking and GCC doesn't recognize
-fuse-ld=lld (supposedly -fuse-ld=gold selects ld.gold, -fuse-ld=bfd
selects ld.bfd and you would expect -fuse-lld=lld to select ld.lld, but it
doesn't work like that apparently).
@Renato: Do you know why Clang is forwarding to GCC like this for linking?
If we need to live with this arrangement for a long time we should
definitely invest in teaching GCC about -fuse-ld=lld
@Davide: is there any chance you could revive that GCC patch to add support
(though it does seem like we still fail H.J.'s test case in
https://bugs.llvm.org//show_bug.cgi?id=28414 has not yet been fixed. I
further reduced it. Seems to be related to symbol versioning. We don't
recognize that `.symver bar, foo@@VERS` is a definition of `foo`.
Second, combining LTO with specifying any specific arm architecture seems
to break linking with LLD. That is, I compile the object files with LTO
(either -flto or -flto=thin) and, in addition to specifying `-target
arm-none-eabi`, I specify an architecture specific flag (such as
-march=armv7e-m, -mcpu=cortex-m4, or -mthumb, or instead I use -target
armv7em-none-eabi), then while calling lld to link I get an error like:
ld.lld: error: main.o: could not infer e_machine from bitcode target
If you are building your own LLD, can you see if the attached patch fixes
it for you? If not, can you add `--reproduce /tmp/repro.tar` to your link
command line and upload repro.tar somewhere for us?
@Renato, do you know if there is any way for us to
implement getBitcodeMachineKind in a sane way so that we don't fill in a
long tail of cases of inferring EM_* from the triple? It seems that the
EM_* choices are buried very deep in the backend, so it might not be
I am working on Linux and these two problems seem to exist on both 4.0rc2
and the current head.
I am really happy with the progress LLVM has made, with the upcoming 4.0
release, I have managed to compile and link programs for my embedded
projects without any of the gcc arm toolchain! There are still some
shortcomings with the linker scripts compared to ld that make those a bit
trickier to work with, even with the added MEMORY section parsing in the
What kind of issues have you been running into?
Linker scripts are certainly one area that we have been slowly filling in
the long tail of compatibility, it would be great if you filed bugs with
any issues you encounter! If the files are small enough and you can share
them, it can be as simple as just adding `--reproduce /tmp/repro.tar` to
your link command line (or setting LLD_REPRODUCE=/tmp/repro.tar in the
environment) and attach repro.tar to a bug report whenever you encounter an
issue (even if repro.tar is larger, you can try hosting on google drive /
dropbox etc., compressing with xz also often helps). Or if it is a parsing
problem just attaching the problematic linker script to the bug report
might be enough.
Other than the above, the only other bother I've hit is having to re-link
with `--oformat binary` to get raw binary output, since there I haven't
found an objcopy equivalent in llvm. I can add feature requests for these
missing features, as well as the bug reports for the above two issues, on
the bugzilla if that is appropriate.
Regarding objcopy, that is something that we have wanted to write for a
long time (but it has never quite been a priority). As objcopy supports a
bewildering set of different options, it would be useful for you to file a
bug about what specific options/features you need. We don't really have a
bugzilla component for objcopy yet, so you can just throw it under llvm-nm
(another one of the binutils, close enough) in
-- Sean Silva
thumb.patch (371 Bytes)