From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=bcQx=5A=martin.st=martin@sourceware.org>
Received: from mail8.parnet.fi (mail8.parnet.fi [77.234.108.134])
	by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B34D3858D1E
	for <binutils@sourceware.org>; Tue,  3 Jan 2023 20:06:11 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail9.parnet.fi (mail9.parnet.fi [77.234.108.21])
	by mail8.parnet.fi  with ESMTP id 303K5qZj015838-303K5qZk015838;
	Tue, 3 Jan 2023 22:05:52 +0200
Received: from foo.martin.st (host-97-187.parnet.fi [77.234.97.187])
	by mail9.parnet.fi (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E311A1471;
	Tue,  3 Jan 2023 22:05:52 +0200 (EET)
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2023 22:05:50 +0200 (EET)
From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Martin_Storsj=F6?= <martin@martin.st>
To: Tamar Christina <Tamar.Christina@arm.com>
cc: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com>, Mark Harmstone <mark@harmstone.com>, 
    Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@foss.arm.com>, 
    NightStrike <nightstrike@gmail.com>, 
    "wej22007@outlook.com" <wej22007@outlook.com>, 
    "zac.walker@linaro.org" <zac.walker@linaro.org>, 
    binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>, "nickc@redhat.com" <nickc@redhat.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/8] ld: Rename aarch64pe emulation target to arm64pe
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR08MB5325215B59D72AB9A49F7A60FFF49@VI1PR08MB5325.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <237bf7b4-576-945a-58dc-245432e2d9@martin.st>
References: <20221230024055.31841-1-mark@harmstone.com> <CAF1jjLsxDUx0FRKXs3zhRVMs=RokYoAbQRbQaDbZJtWOM5MmUA@mail.gmail.com> <VI1PR08MB53259FF209098688F4E34A65FFF49@VI1PR08MB5325.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <01e2b3d2-ad18-27ba-9761-82d2d521c00e@foss.arm.com>
 <f85ed8cb-87cd-add8-a64-1fd21a4c6dd@martin.st> <VI1PR08MB5325F158E541D2C4345B90A9FFF49@VI1PR08MB5325.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <005b709d-acf5-f266-1e4f-41d2c3918ba3@harmstone.com> <CA+=Sn1=tcO+iUQaFXp_Wx1WBk83zfFzKLQTuQV-oOMS9U=t0_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <VI1PR08MB5325215B59D72AB9A49F7A60FFF49@VI1PR08MB5325.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-FE-Policy-ID: 3:14:2:SYSTEM
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org
List-Id: <binutils.sourceware.org>

On Tue, 3 Jan 2023, Tamar Christina wrote:

> I don't think we'll need to patch LLVM as you typically don't specify 
> the emulation when using ld.

When cross compiling, then the compiler driver (gcc or clang) will specify 
it.

> Most projects that want cross toolchain support lookup the documentation 
> where we can explicitly point out that the alias is there for 
> compatibility with other toolchains.

Currently, in mingw scenarios, you can have gcc call ld.bfd or ld.lld, and 
you can have clang call either ld.bfd or ld.lld.

Currently clang calls the linker with "-m arm64pe" and ld.lld recognizes 
and handles that same option. If clang calls ld.bfd, then ld.bfd also 
needs to recognize "-m arm64pe".

If gcc decides to go with a different option name than "-m arm64pe", then 
ld.lld will also need to add support for that specific option spelling, 
for the gcc+ld.lld combination to work.

Therefore, this just adds an entirely unnecessary split of the option 
names - why not just stick with the current option name which is in active 
use?

// Martin