Linking with LLD

[bstrie]

LLVM 4.0 is shipping with LLD enabled, though AFAIK it is not yet production-ready on all platforms. I believe we've got an LLVM upgrade planned soon to resolve AVR/emscripten problems anyway, so now's the time to start determining what we might need to do to support it, how it impacts compiler performance/binary size/runtime performance compared to our usual linkers, and what platforms on which we might want to enable it by default.

Current status (2020-04-24) summarized at #39915 (comment)

Possible problems:

• LLD has internal parallelism, and is not documented to have jobserver support, which can lead to poor contention resolution in practice

[bstrie]

See also a PoC in #36120.

[retep998]

LLD may be a very good candidate for MinGW targets, because we currently bundle a linker with them anyway and MinGW's linker has a variety of issues ranging from a lack of ASLR to no bigobj support. If we can somehow also bring along the necessary mingw libraries when cross compiling and not just native targeting (which rustup's mingw package is currently limited to), then that would enable rust cross compilation from linux out of the box, which would be a huge improvement over the existing situation where people get MinGW from their distro and then run into issues because distros almost always use an incompatible MinGW.

LLD is not a good candidate for natively targeting MSVC targets, due to several reasons, the primary reason being the lack of debuginfo support. Cross compiling to MSVC targets requires libraries that can't be redistributed so we can't support that out of the box anyway.

[bstrie]

The tracking issue for upgrading to LLVM 4.0 is #37609 .

[binarycrusader]

For the record lld is definitely not ready for Solaris targets. But on Solaris, there's no reason that I'm aware of to use lld instead of the native ld instead. We've already been looking at what it would take to have rust use Solaris ld on Solaris instead of using gcc for linking.

[whitequark]

@binarycrusader One reason to use lld is when building for Solaris, not on Solaris.

[japaric]

PR #40018 adds a -Z linker-flavor flag to rustc to make it possible to use LLD as a linker. That PR doesn't embed LLD in rustc but allows out of tree experimentation with it.

@binarycrusader ^ that may help with your experiment of directly using Solaris' ld instead of gcc.

[bstrie]

We now appear to be running on LLVM 4.0. @japaric , does this mean that the linker-flavor flag can now be easily used to compare and contrast LLD with the system linker?

[japaric]

@bstrie #40018 landed a few weeks ago. Since that landed one has been able to use -Z linker-flavor=ld -C linker=ld.lld to use an external LLD binary as a linker. Note that, unlike gcc, LLD doesn't know where the system libraries are so you'll have to pass the library search path to the linker using -C link-args='-L ...' if you are linking to any system library.

What LLVM 4.0 helps with is merging LLD into rustc. With that change we wouldn't require an external linker in some scenarios like linking MUSL binaries or bare metal programs. I say some scenarios because most targets require linking to system libraries where you will run into the library search path problem I mentioned above. For those targets, LLD won't work out of the box. It's not clear how and where to solve that problem and without a solution for that we can't switch to LLD for the most important (tier 1) targets, which the reduces the appeal of embedding LLD into rustc in the first place.

[whitequark]

@japaric What are the arguments against embedding (sysroot-relative library) search paths, as well as things like -lc -lpthread crt0.o, directly into rustc? After all, some component of the toolchain has to embed them as we don't have any standard for the platforms to follow, and binutils is not a good golden source of this knowledge.

The only drawback I can think of is the situation where the same triple would have different search paths on different flavors of systems (which will likely be exclusive to Linux/glibc triples, and especially bad on platforms with multilib). In that case, I believe clang snoops the OS name and hardcodes OS-specific conventions, which seems bad but probably unavoidable if one wants to distribute a single binary that runs on any Linux (and doesn't need the system linker).

[iainnicol]

@retep998 I had a brief look at lld a few months ago. I wasn't able to cross compile (cross link?) an .exe from Linux. It seemed like lld only supports platform native formats.

Hopefully I'm mistaken.