| 2 Jun 2025 |
 Teo (he/him) | I guess then you want to use clang as well? Otherwise you don't get LTO(?) I don't know how C/C++ linker stuff works | 12:15:02 |
 emily | mixing linkers is fine | 12:18:43 |
| emily | but we probably won't want to use a different linker just for Haskell unless we need to | 12:18:56 |
| emily | OTOH both ld.gold and ld.bfd sort of suck for Linux to be on so maybe someone should make LLD happen system-wide :P | 12:19:23 |
| emily | (then again, I'd say the same about GCC vs. LLVM) | 12:19:35 |
| Teo (he/him) | The other thing is GHC supports using a different linker to what it was built with, but I'm not sure if it's worthwhile making use of that. You'd have to split it into a bindist derivation and an installed GHC derivation. It would save building GHC n times though | 12:21:31 |
 sterni (he/him) | emily: it's probably better to use lld over ld.gold longterm, but we'd have to check first how bad ld.bfd is nowadays | 12:43:43 |
| sterni (he/him) | I wonder if GHC's configure script still rejects ld.bfd… | 12:44:12 |
| Teo (he/him) | I'd be keen to just make it an opt-in thing for now, and then at some point in the future we can make it the default if we want | 12:49:44 |
 Alex | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
OTOH both ld.gold and ld.bfd sort of suck for Linux to be on so maybe someone should make LLD happen system-wide :P I've found mold to be even better than lld.
But it doesn't (didn't?) support the weird things GHC does. :( | 18:24:42 |
