Updated in 2022-12.
Subtitle: Is ld.lld a drop-in replacement for GNU ld?
The motivation for this article was someone challenging the "drop-in replacement" claim on LLD's website (the discussion was about Linux-like ELF toolchain):
LLD is a linker from the LLVM project that is a drop-in replacement for system linkers and runs much faster than them. It also provides features that are useful for toolchain developers.
99.9% pieces of software work with ld.lld without a change. Some linker script applications may need an adaption (such adaption is oftentimes due to brittle assumptions: asking too much from GNU ld's behavior which should be fixed anyway). So I defended for this claim.
Piotr Kubaj said that this is a probably more of a marketing term than a technical term, the term tries to lure existing users into thinking "it's the same you know, but better!". I think that this is fair in some senses: for many applications ld.lld has achieved much faster speed and much lower memory usage than GNU ld. A more important thing is that ld.lld adds a third choice to the spectrum. It brings competitive pressure to both sides, gives incentive for improvement, and makes for more standardized future features/extensions. One reason that I am subscribed to the binutils mailing list is I want to participate in its design processes (I am proud to say that I have managed to find some early issues of various new things).
Anyway, I thought documenting the compatibility problems between the ELF ports of ld.lld and GNU ld is useful, not only to others but also to my future self, hence this article. I will try to describe GNU gold behaviors as well.
So here is the long list. Please keep in mind that many compatibility issues do not really matter and a user may never run into such an issue. Many of them just serve as educational purposes and my personal reference. There some some user perceivable differences but quite a lot are WONTFIX on both GNU ld and ld.lld. ld.lld, as a newer linker, has less legacy compatibility burden and can make good default choices in some cases and say no to some unneeded features/behaviors. A large number of features are duplicated in GNU ld's various ports. It is also common that one thing behaves this way in port A and another way in port B.
- GNU ld reports
gc-sections requires either an entry or an undefined symbolin a-r --gc-sectionlink. ld.lld doesn't error (https://reviews.llvm.org/D84131#2162411). I am unsure whether such a diagnostic will be useful (an uncommon use case where the GC roots are more than the explict linker options). - The default image base for
-no-pielinks is different. For example, on x86-64, GNU ld defaults to 0x400000 while ld.lld defaults to 0x200000. - GNU ld synthesizes a
STT_FILEsymbol when copying non-STT_SECTIONSTB_LOCALsymbols. ld.lld doesn't.- The
STT_FILEsymbol name is the input filename. For compiler driver specified startup files likecrti.oandcrtn.o, their absolute paths will end up in the linked image. This breaks local determinism (toolchain paths are leaked) for some users. - I filed https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48023 and https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26822. From binutils 2.36 onwards, the base name will be used.
- The
- Text relocations.
- In GNU ld,
-z notext/-z text/unspecified are a tri-state. For-z notext/unspecified, the dynamic tagsDT_TEXTRELandDF_TEXTRELare added on demand. If unspecified and GNU ld is configured with--enable-textrel-check=warning, a warning will be issued. - ld.lld has two states and adds
DT_TEXTRELandDF_TEXTRELif-z notextis specified. - GNU ld supports more relocation types as text relocations.
- In GNU ld,
- Default library paths.
- GNU ld has default library paths.
- ld.lld doesn't. This is intentional so https://reviews.llvm.org/D70048 (NetBSD) cannot be accepted.
- GNU ld supports grouped short options. This can sometimes cause
surprising behaviors with misspelled or unimplemented options, e.g.
-no-piemeans-n -o -piebecause GNU ld as of 2.35 has not implemented-no-pie. Nick Clifton committedUpdate the BFD linker so that it deprecates grouped short options.to deprecated the GNU ld feature. ld.lld never supports grouped short options. - Mixed SHF_LINK_ORDER and non-SHF_LINK_ORDER input sections in an
output section.
- ld.lld performs sorting within an input section description and allows arbitrary mixes.
- GNU ld does not allow mixed sections https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26256 (H.J. Lu has a patch)
- ld.lld defaults to
-z relroby default. This is probably not a good default but it is difficult to change now. I have a comment https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48549. GNU ld warns for-z relroand-z norelrofor non Linux/FreeBSD BFD emulations (e.g.-m aarch64elf). - Different archive member extraction semantics. See http://lld.llvm.org/ELF/warn_backrefs.html for details.
- ld.lld
--warn-backrefswarns fordef.a ref.o def.soifdef.acannot satisfy previous unresolved symbols. ld.lld resolves the definition todef.awhile GNU linkers resolve the definition todef.so. - GNU ld
-statichas traditionally been a synonym to-Bstatic. Recently on x86 it has been changed to behave a bit similar togold -static, which disallows linking against shared objects. ld.lld-staticis still a synonym to-Bstatic. - GNU linkers have a default
--dynamic-linker. ld.lld doesn't. - GNU ld has architecture-specific rules for relocations referencing undefined weak symbols. I don't think the GNU ld behaviors can be summarized (even by maintainers!). ld.lld's are consistent.
- The conditions to create
.interpare different. I believe GNU ld's is quite difficult to describe. --no-allow-shlib-undefinedand--rpath-link- GNU ld traces all shared objects (transitive
DT_NEEDEDdependencies) and emulates the bheavior of a dynamic loader to warn more cases. - gold and ld.lld implement a simplified version. They warn for shared
objects whose
DT_NEEDEDdependencies are all seen as input files.
- GNU ld traces all shared objects (transitive
--fatal-warnings- GNU ld still reports
warning: .... - ld.lld switches to
error: ....
- GNU ld still reports
--no-relax- GNU ld: disable
R_X86_64_[REX_]GOTPCRELX - ld.lld: no-op before 14.0.0 (https://reviews.llvm.org/D113615)
- GNU ld: disable
- GNU ld's internal linker scripts place
.ctorsinto.init_array. gold enables--ctors-in-init-arrayby default which does the same thing. ld.lld doesn't implement the functionality. - ld.lld places
.rodata(among otherSHF_ALLOCand non-SHF_WRITE-non-SHF_EXECINSTRsections) before.text(among otherSHF_ALLOCandSHF_EXECINSTRsections). .symtab/.shstrtab/.strtabin a linker script.- Ignored by GNU ld, therefore
--orphan-handling=does not warn/error. - Respected by ld.lld
- Ignored by GNU ld, therefore
- GNU ld recognizes some sections like
.textand.tbssas special (bfd_elf_special_section)..text, if present as an output section, doesn't have theSHF_WRITEflag even if we add aSHF_WRITEinput section into the output section. - Whether
ADDR(.foo)in a linker script can retain an empty output section.- GNU ld: no. Symbol assignments relative to such empty sections may
have strange
st_shndx. - ld.lld: yes.
- GNU ld: no. Symbol assignments relative to such empty sections may
have strange
- GNU ld does not produce
.rela.eh_framein-ror--emit-relocsmode. gold and ld.lld produce.rela.eh_frame. - GNU ld applies tail merging to
.dynstrand.strtab, but ld.lld doesn't. - GNU ld applies tail merging to other
SHF_MERGE|SHF_STRINGSsections by default. ld.lld performs tail merging only with-O2. - If an undefined symbol is referenced by both
R_X86_64_JUMP_SLOT(lazy) andR_X86_64_GLOB_DAT(non-lazy)- GNU ld generates
.plt.gotwithR_X86_64_GLOB_DATrelocations.R_X86_64_JUMP_SLOTcan thus be omitted to decrease the number of dynamic relocations. - ld.lld does not implement this saving. This naturally requires more than one pass scanning relocations which ld.lld doesn't do at present. https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32938
- GNU ld generates
- GNU ld relaxes
R_X86_64_GOTPCRELrelocations with some forms (e.g.movq foo@GOTPCREL(%rip), %reg -> leaq foo(%rip), %reg). ld.lld never relaxesR_X86_64_GOTPCRELrelocations. - GNU linkers give
.gnu.linkonce*sections COMDAT section semantics. ld.lld simply ignores such sections. https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31586 tracks when the hack can be removed. - GNU ld adds
PT_PHDRandPT_INTERPtogether. A shared object usually does not have the two program headers. In ld.lld,PT_PHDRis always added unless the address assignment makes is unsuitable to place program headers at all. - The conditions to create the dynamic symbol table
.dynsym.- ld.lld: there is an input shared object,
-pie/-shared, or--export-dynamic. - GNU ld's is quite complex.
--export-dynamicis not special, though.
- ld.lld: there is an input shared object,
--export-dynamic-symbol- gold's implies
-u. - GNU ld (from 2.35 onwards) and ld.lld's do not imply
-u.
- gold's implies
- In GNU ld, a defined
foo@vcan suppress the extraction of an archive member definingfoo@@v1. ld.lld treats them two separate symbols and thus the archive member extraction still happens. This can hardly matter. See All about symbol versioning for details. - Default program headers.
- With traditional
-z noseparate-code, GNU ld defaults to aRX/R/RWprogram header layout. With-z separate-code(default on Linux/x86 from binutils 2.31 onwards), GNU ld defaults to aR/RX/R/RWprogram header layout. - ld.lld defaults to
R/RX/RW(RELRO)/RW(non-RELRO). With--rosegment, ld.lld usesRX/RW(RELRO)/RW(non-RELRO). - Placing all R before RX is preferable because it can save one program header and reduce alignment costs.
- ld.lld's split of RW saves one maxpagesize alignment and can make the linked image smaller.
- This breaks some assumptions that the (so-called) "text segment" precedes the (so-called) "data segment".
- For example, certain programs expect
.textis the first section of the text segment and specify-Ttext=0to place thePF_R|PF_Xprogram header at p_vaddr=0. This is a brittle assumption and should be avoided. IfPT_PHDRis needed,--image-base=0is a replacement. IfPT_PHDRis not needed,.text 0 : { *(.text .text.*) }is a replacement.
- With traditional
- ld.lld places
.ipltinto the output section of the same name. GNU ld and gold just use.plt. ld.lld's approach has the benefit that the tricky feature stands out and symbolizers don't have to deal with mixed PLT entries. - GNU ld and gold define
__rela_iplt_startin-no-piemode, but not in-piemode. glibccsu/libc-start.cneeds it when statically linked, but not in the static pie mode. ld.lld does not distinguish-no-pie,-pieand-shared. https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48674 - ld.lld uses
--no-apply-dynamic-relocsby default. GNU ld and gold fill in the GOT entries with link-time values. GNU ld only supports--no-apply-dynamic-relocsfor aarch64 https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25891. - When relaxing
R_X86_64_REX_GOTPCRELX, GNU ld suppresses the relaxation if it would cause relocation overflow. ld.lld does not perform the check. - GNU ld and gold allow
--exclude-libs=bto hideb.a. ld.lld requires--exclude=libs=b.a. - Whether to use executable stack if neither
-z execstacknor-z noexecstackis specified. GNU ld and gold check whether an object file does not have.note.GNU-stack. ld.lld ignores.note.GNU-stackand defaults to-z noexecstack. - ld.lld cannot GC non-group non-SHF_LINK_ORDER
.gcc_except_table*sections. GNU ld can GC such sections. For Clang>=13,clang -fbinutils-version=2.36can setSHF_LINK_ORDERon.gcc_except_table*to allow GC. - In GNU ld, a definition referenced by an unneeded
(
--as-needed) shared object is not exported into.dynsymPR26551. gold and ld.lld export such a definition. - ppc64: GNU ld defines
.TOC.to the output section of.gotplus 0x8000. ld.lld chooses the input section.gotplus 0x8000. All architectures I know define their GOT relocations relative to the input section.got.
--as-needed
In GNU ld and gold, a shared object gets a DT_NEEDED
entry if:
- it is linked at least once in --no-as-needed mode (i.e.
--as-needed a.so --no-as-needed a.so=> needed) - or it has a definition resolving a non-weak reference
In GNU ld, an as-needed shared object is like an archive. It should come after the references.
In ld.lld,
- it is linked at least once in
--no-as-neededmode (i.e.--as-needed a.so --no-as-needed a.so=> needed) - or it has a definition resolving a non-weak reference from a live
section (not discarded by
--gc-sections)
1 | # RUN: split-file %s %t |
Semantics of --wrap
GNU ld hand ld.lld have slightly different --wrap
semantics. I use "slightly" because in most use cases users will not
observe a difference.
In GNU ld, --wrap only applies to undefined symbols. In
ld.lld, --wrap happens after all other symbol resolution
steps. The implementation is to mangle the symbol table of each object
file (foo -> __wrap_foo; __real_foo -> foo) so that
all relocations to foo or __real_foo will be
redirected.
The ld.lld semantics have the advantage that non-LTO, LTO and relocatable link behaviors are consistent. I filed https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26358 for GNU ld.
1 | # GNU ld: call bar |
If there are __real_foo references but foo
does not exist, GNU linkers can redirect __real_foo
references to foo. ld.lld doesn't do anything. This
difference doesn't matter in practice.
1 | # REQUIRES: x86 |
Relocation referencing a local relative to a discarded input section
- How to resolve a relocation referencing a
STT_SECTIONsymbol associated to a discarded.debug_*input section.- GNU ld and gold have logic resolving the relocation to the prevailing section symbol.
- ld.lld does not have the logic. ld.lld 11 defines some tombstone values.
A symbol table entry with STB_LOCAL binding that is defined relative to one of a group's sections, and that is contained in a symbol table section that is not part of the group, must be discarded if the group members are discarded. References to this symbol table entry from outside the group are not allowed.
ld.bfd/gold/lld error if the section containing the relocation is SHF_ALLOC. .debug* do not have the SHF_ALLOC flag and those relocations are allowed.
lld resolves such relocations to 0. ld.bfd and gold, however, have some CB_PRETEND/PRETEND logic to resolve relocations to the definitions in the prevailing comdat groups. The code is hacky and may not suit lld.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42030
Canonical PLT entry for ifunc
How to handle a direct access relocation referencing a
STT_GNU_IFUNC?
c.f. GNU indirect function.
__rela_iplt_start
GNU ld and gold define __rela_iplt_start in
-no-pie mode, but not in -pie mode. ld.lld
defines __rela_iplt_start regardless of
-no-pie, -pie or -shared.
Static pie and static no-pie relocation processing is very different in glibc.
- Static no-pie uses special code to process a magic array delimitered
by
__rela_iplt_start/__rela_iplt_end. - Static pie uses self-relocation to take care of
R_*_IRELATIVE. The above magic array code is executed as well. If__rela_iplt_start/__rela_iplt_endare defined (like what ld.lld does), we will get0 < __rela_iplt_start < __rela_iplt_endincsu/libc-start.c.ARCH_SETUP_IRELwill crash when resolving the first relocation which has been processed.
nsz has a glibc patch that moves the self-relocation later so everything is set up for ifunc resolvers.
Text relocations
1 | echo 'void bar(); int main() { try { bar(); } catch (...) {} }' > a.cc |
Linker scripts
- GNU ld has an internal linker script if neither
-Tnor--default-scriptis specified. gold and ld.lld do not have an internal linker script.- I closed https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51309 as reporting an internal linker script would significantly increase complexity without justifiable benefit.
- Some built-in processing cannot be serialized into a linker script.
- If neither
FILEHDRnorPHDRSis not specified, and the minimum address ofSHF_ALLOCsections is set so that adding headers will need to add an extra page, ld.lld will not place ELF header and program headers in aPT_LOADprogram header. - Some linker script commands are unimplemented in ld.lld, e.g.
BLOCK()as a compatibility alias forALIGN().BLOCKis documented in GNU ld as a compatibility alias and it is not widely used, so there is no reason to keep the kludge in ld.lld. - Some syntax is not recognized by ld.lld, e.g. ld.lld recognizes
*(EXCLUDE_FILE(a.o) .text)but notEXCLUDE_FILE(a.o) *(.text)(https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45764)- To me the unrecognized syntax is misleading.
- If we support one way doing something, and the thing has several alternative syntax, we may not consider the alternative syntax just for the sake of completeness.
- Different orphan section placement. GNU ld has very complex rules
and certain section names have special semantics. ld.lld adopted some of
its core ideas but made a lot of simplication:
- output sections are given ranks
- output sections are placed after symbol assignments At some point we should document it. https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42327
- For an error detected when processing a linker script, ld.lld may
report it multiple times (e.g.
ASSERTfailure). GNU ld has such issues, too, but probably much rarer. SORTcommands- GNU ld: https://sourceware.org/binutils/docs/ld/Input-Section-Basics.html#Input-Section-Basics mentions the feature but its behavior is strange/unintuitive. I created SORT and multiple patterns in an input section description.
- ld.lld performs sorting within an input section description. https://reviews.llvm.org/D91127
- In ld.lld,
AT(lma)forces creation of a newPT_LOADprogram header. GNU ld can reuse the previousPT_LOADprogram header if LMA addresses are contiguous.lma-offset.s - In ld.lld, non-
SHF_ALLOCsections always get 0sh_addr. In GNU ld you can have non-zerosh_addrbutSTT_SECTIONrelocations referencing such sections are not really meaningful. - Dot assignment (e.g.
. = 4;) in an output section description.- GNU ld: dot advances to 4 relative to the start. If you consider
.on the right hand side andABSOLUTE(.), I don't think the behaviors are consistent. - ld.lld: move dot to address 0x4, which will usually trigger an
unable to move location counter backwarderror. https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41169
- GNU ld: dot advances to 4 relative to the start. If you consider
Symbol assignments within an output section
See an example for GNU ld and lld's behaviors. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20// a.s
nop
// a.x
SECTIONS {
. = 0x1204;
.text : {
*(.text)
/* dot is 0x1205 */
a1 = ALIGN(32); /* = ALIGN(ABSOLUTE(.), 32) */
a2 = 32;
a2_1 = a2;
a3 = ABSOLUTE(0x1225);
a3_1 = a3;
a4 = ABSOLUTE(0x1225) + 1;
a4_1 = a4;
a5 = ADDR(.text);
}
/DISCARD/ : { *(.dynsym) *(.gnu.hash) *(.hash) *(.dynstr) }
}
For (bar = 32;) in an output section description, GNU ld
defines bar at 32 relative to the start of the output
section. Similarly, . = 32 advances the location counter to
4 relative to the start of the output section. The behaviors are
different for symbol assignments outside of an output section and
ABSOLUTE has special but unclear semantics. When you think
of binary operators, the behaviors are more confusing.
ld.lld simply doesn't implement the special but unclear semantics of relative offsets within an output section.
1 | % as a.s -o a.o |
For portability, I only recommend:
sym = .;define a symbol at the current location. += 4;advance the location counter. This is preferred over. = . + 4;
.gnu.warning
If an input section named .gnu.warning is included in
the output, GNU linkers will issue a warning with the message extracted
from the section's content. 1
2
3echo '.globl _start; _start: .section .gnu.warning; .asciz "hello"' > a.s
gcc -c a.s
ld.bfd a.o # a.o: warning: hello
If a section from a relocatable object file or shared object is named
.gnu.warning.$symbol, GNU linkers will record the symbol
name. If the symbol is referenced by a relocatable object file, they
will issue a warning. 1
2
3
4echo '.globl _start; _start: .section .gnu.warning._start; .asciz "hello"' > a.s
echo 'call _start; call _start' > b.s
gcc -c a.s b.s
gcc -shared a.o -o a.so1
2
3
4
5% ld.bfd a.o b.o
ld.bfd: warning: hello
% gold a.o b.o
b.o(.text+0x1): warning: hello
b.o(.text+0x6): warning: hello
GNU ld will likely scan the symbol table and report a warning for each referenced symbol with the warning bit set. gold moves the check to relocation scanning and reports a warning for each reference. However, this approach introduces some per-relocation overhead.
ld.lld doesn't implement the feature. It is unclear whether the feature is useful. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/41353
For GCC and Clang, I think
__attribute__((deprecated(...)))
(-Wdeprecated-declarations) is a quite good
alternative.
Misc
I'll also mention some ld.lld release notes which can demonstrate some GNU incompatibility in previous versions. (For example, if one thing is supported in version N, then the implication is that it is unsupported in previous versions. Well, it could be that it worked in older versions but regressed at some version. However, I don't know the existence of such things.)
LLD 12.0.0
-r --gc-sectionsis supported.- The archive member extraction semantics of COMMON symbols is by
default (
--fortran-common) compatible with GNU ld. You may want to read Semantics of a common definition in an archive for details. This is unfortunate. .rel[a].pltand.rel[a].dynget theSHF_INFO_LINKflag. https://reviews.llvm.org/D89828
LLD 11.0.0
- ld.lld can discard unused symbols with
--discard-all/--discard-localswhen-ror--emit-relocsis specified. https://reviews.llvm.org/D77807 --emit-relocs --strip-debugcan be used. https://reviews.llvm.org/D74375SHT_GNU_verneedin shared objects are parsed, and versioned undefined symbols in shared objects are respected. Previously non-default version symbols could cause spurious--no-allow-shlib-undefinederrors. https://reviews.llvm.org/D80059DF_1_PIEis set for position-independent executables. https://reviews.llvm.org/D80872- Better compatibility related to output section alignments and LMA regions. D75286 D74297 D75724 D81986
-rallowsSHT_X86_64_UNWINDto be merged intoSHT_PROGBITS. This allows clang/GCC produced object files to be mixed together. https://reviews.llvm.org/D85785- In a input section description, the filename can be specified in
double quotes.
archive:filesyntax is added. https://reviews.llvm.org/D72517 https://reviews.llvm.org/D75100 - Linker script specified empty
(.init|.preinit|.fini)_arrayare allowed with RELRO. https://reviews.llvm.org/D76915
LLD 10.0.0
- ld.lld supports
\(treating the next character like a non-meta character) and[!...](negation) in glob patterns. https://reviews.llvm.org/D66613
LLD 9.0.0
- The
DF_STATIC_TLSflag is set for i386 and x86-64 when initial-exec TLS models are used. - Many configurations of the Linux kernel's arm32_7, arm64, powerpc64le and x86_64 ports can be linked by ld.lld.
LLD 8.0.0
SHT_NOTEsections get very high ranks (they usually precede other sections). https://reviews.llvm.org/D55800
In the LLD 7.0.0 era, https://reviews.llvm.org/D44264 was my first meaningful
(albeit trivial) patch to ld.lld. Next I made contribution to
--warn-backrefs. Then I started to fix tricky issues like
copy relocations of a versioned symbol, duplicate --wrap,
and section ranks. I have learned a lot from these code reviews. In the
8.0.0, 9.0.0 and 10.0.0 era, I have fixed a number of tricky issues and
improved a dozen of other things and am confident to say that other than
MIPS ;-) and certain other ISA specific things I am familiar with every
corner of the code base. These are still challenges such as integration
of RISC-V style linker relaxation and post-link optimization,
improvement to some aspects of the linker script, but otherwise ld.lld
is a stable and finished part of the toolchain.
A few random notes:
- Symbol resolution can take 10%~20% time. Parallelization can theoretically improve the process but it is hard to overstate the challenge (if you additionally take into account determinism).
- Be wary of feature creep. I have learned a lot from ELF design discussions on generic-abi and from Solaris "linker aliens" in particular. I am sorry to say so but some development on ld.lld indeed belongs to such categories. Sometimes it is difficult to draw a line between unsupported legacy and legacy we have to support.
- ld.lld's adoption is now so large that sometimes a decision (like a default value for an option) cannot make everyone happy.