https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=54940
--- Comment #5 from Zeb Figura z.figura12@gmail.com --- (In reply to Jacek Caban from comment #4)
BTW, for ELF target binutils developers decided that it's better to reimplement the linker in form of gold instead of trying to improve ld.bfd. The same is likely true for COFF targets
Huh? ld is still seeing active development; in fact both ld and bfd have an order of magnitude more development than gold. Maybe it's a good idea to implement another gold for COFF just for speed, but I don't see why that's relevant to this issue at all.
and I see little point in reimplementing it again when lld-link exists. GCC also supports -fuse-ld=lld, it should be possible to make it work that way.
I'm probably getting unnecessarily annoyed, but for some reason it kind of irks me when someone does a hostile fork or reimplementation (with a harmfully permissive license, no less), then I hear claims that there's no reason to use the original project, regardless of the fact that it still exists and sees active development. Especially when lld has some severe problems in terms of size and memory usage.