Vadim Petrochenkov

>renaming the self-contained linking components to "linker features" (w/ a prefix) Could you elaborate, I don't understand this part.

I see, I suspected that, but it seems far enough from linker features, if they are understood as something representing linker interface.

>3. linking LLVM bitcode ... `-Clinker-features=+llbc` I just r+'d the LLVM bitcode linker today - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117458, it should land soon. It has its own interface and no cc wrapper, so...

>1. automatic cross-linking with clang-specific ... >2. turning parts of the flavor on or off ... \+

Sorry for the delay. >4. targets with "interesting" linking requirements: I don't know the MSVC UEFI use-case but it looks like they can use either MSVC+lld or another unix. My...

All the remaining part makes sense to me, except I'm still skeptical about moving the "self-contained" bit to the linker flavor/features. ("Self-contained" and other features will even be processed in...

I'll close this PR because it's only used for discussion, and the changes themselves are going to be implemented in a different way.

I'm going to rubber stamp this if wasm experts are on board with this stabilization. @rfcbot reviewed

@rfcbot concern needs-blog-post

@rfcbot resolve needs-blog-post