Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
156 lines (113 loc) · 6.38 KB

README.md

File metadata and controls

156 lines (113 loc) · 6.38 KB
Raw

Wild linker

Wild is a linker with the goal of being very fast for iterative development.

It's still very much a work-in-progress and definitely shouldn't be used for linking any production binaries.

Q&A

Why another linker?

Mold is already very fast, however it doesn't do incremental linking and the author has stated that they don't intend to. Wild doesn't do incremental linking yet, but that is the end-goal. By writing Wild in Rust, it's hoped that the complexity of incremental linking will be achievable.

What's working?

The following platforms / architectures are currently supported:

  • x86-64 on Linux

The following is working with the caveat that there may be bugs:

  • Output to statically linked, non-relocatable binaries
  • Output to statically linked, position-independent binaries (static-PIE)
  • Output to dynamically linked binaries
  • Output to shared objects (.so files)
  • Rust proc-macros, when linked with Wild work
  • Most of the top downloaded crates on crates.io have been tested with Wild and pass their tests
  • Debug info

What isn't yet supported?

Lots of stuff. Here are some of the larger things that aren't yet done, roughly sorted by current priority:

  • Incremental linking
  • Support for architectures other than x86-64
  • Support for a wider range of linker flags
  • Linker scripts
  • Mac support
  • Windows support
  • LTO

How can I verify that Wild was used to link a binary?

Install readelf, then run:

readelf  -p .comment my-executable

Look for a line like:

Linker: Wild version 0.1.0

Or if you don't want to install readelf, you can probably get away with:

strings my-executable | grep Linker

Where did the name come from?

It's somewhat of a tradition for linkers to end with the letters "ld". e.g. "GNU ld, "gold", "lld", "mold". Since the end-goal is for the linker to be incremental, an "I" is added. Let's say the "W" stands for "Wild", since recursive acronyms are popular in open-source projects.

Benchmarks

There are lots of features that Wild doesn't yet support, so I'm not sure benchmarking is super useful at this stage. That said, I have done some very preliminary comparisons. I've tried linking the binary in my warm build benchmark repository, which builds an ~80MB, non-PIE, statically linked binary with symbol tables, eh-frames and no debug info. On my laptop, I get the following times:

Linker Time (ms) ± Standard deviation (ms) CPU time (ms) File size (MiB)
GNU ld 12300 150 12299 80.3
gold 3365 30 3362 83.3
lld 905 5.6 1222 84.8
mold 457 7.2 2834 81.1
wild 363 6.6 1585 80.9

Notes about these results:

  • CPU time is user + system CPU time as reported by hyperfine.
  • Mold by default forks, which lets the user not wait for the mold process that does the work to shutdown. This is a neat optimisation. In the above benchmarks, the time column is with this optimisation enabled. The CPU time however is with this optimisation disabled (--no-fork), since when forking is enabled, we can't easily measure the CPU time.

I want to stress that this is only one benchmark. Many unknowns remain:

  • Will the results be significantly different for other benchmarks?
  • How will Wild scale up when linking much larger binaries and/or on systems with many CPU cores?
  • Will implementing the missing features require changes to Wild's design that might slow it down?

All we can really conclude from this benchmark is that Wild is currently reasonably efficient at non-incremental linking and reasonable at taking advantage of a few threads. I don't think that adding the missing features should change this benchmark significantly. i.e. adding support for debug info really shouldn't change our speed when linking with no debug info. I can't be sure however until I implement these missing features.

If you decide to benchmark Wild against other linkers, in order to make it a fair comparison, you should ensure that the other linkers aren't doing work on something that Wild doesn't support. In particular:

  • Wild defaults to --gc-sections, so for a fair comparison, that should be passed to all the linkers.
  • Wild defaults to -z now, so best to pass that to all linkers.

There might be other flags that speed up the other linkers by letting them avoid some work that they're currently doing. If you know of such flags, please let me know.

Linking Rust code

The following is a cargo test command-line that can be used to build and test a crate using Wild. This has been run successfully on a few popular crates (e.g. ripgrep, serde, tokio, rand, bitflags). It assumes that the "wild" binary is on your path. It also depends on the Clang compiler being installed, since GCC doesn't allow using an arbitrary linker.

RUSTFLAGS="-Clinker=clang -Clink-args=--ld-path=wild" cargo test

Contributing

If you'd like to help out, I'd love to hear from you. It's a good idea to reach out first to avoid duplication of effort. Also, it'll make it possible for me to provide hints that might make what you're trying to do easier. Options for communicating:

  • I like, where possible, to talk to people video video chat. You can book a time in my calendar. If time zones make this hard, let me know via some other means and I'll see if we can find a time that works (I'm in Sydney, Australia).
  • Open an issue or a discussion here on github.
  • Message me on the rust-lang Zulip
  • Email me at dvdlttmr@gmail.com

Sponsorship

If you'd like to sponsor this work, that would be very much appreciated. The more sponsorship I get the longer I can continue to work on this project full time.

License

Licensed under either of Apache License, Version 2.0 or MIT license at your option.

Unless you explicitly state otherwise, any contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in Wild by you, as defined in the Apache-2.0 license, shall be dual licensed as above, without any additional terms or conditions.