Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:44:30 -0500 From: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> To: David Chisnall <theraven@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org, Dimitry Andric <dim@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Migration to dynamic libs for llvm and clang Message-ID: <CAPyFy2BSU%2B8-TWh53z_FT-z2NCsCDU6=%2Bi_-OH6MJTxo2dqhpw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <74C51AC7-B7ED-4EBC-8506-1554C7CA31FF@FreeBSD.org> References: <CAPyFy2DeLiFAW_yS14r1n89r92MFG1sbX88rNgaJshwH9-%2BkQg@mail.gmail.com> <41F09A1C-01D6-42C9-B495-244DFC2B0364@FreeBSD.org> <D359161D-B14C-4F19-8F0D-57FE530D0AF4@FreeBSD.org> <74C51AC7-B7ED-4EBC-8506-1554C7CA31FF@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 16 December 2014 at 11:15, David Chisnall <theraven@freebsd.org> wrote: > > Upstream doesn't call it libclang (that's the name of the library with a = stable C ABI, which is why I'd like us not to confuse it with something wit= h a library with an unstable C++ API). They do produce a libLLVM.so from th= e LLVM builds and work is underway to have shared library builds for clang. Agreed. Even if there's no potential issue since it will be in /usr/lib/private it would be confusing. David's suggestion of libcfe sounds reasonable. >> That said, I agree with the general idea, but one of the first things >> we should decide is whether this will be optional or not. Having to >> maintain yet another WITH_CLANG_FOO option is burdensome... Fair enough, I'd definitely like to see fewer build-time knobs over time, not more. > I agree. I'd quite like to see performance numbers for the compiler. I = think I saw about a 10% overhead for buildworld last time I tried, but that= was a couple of years ago. Ok. I will put this together in a branch and we can compare results and decide which way to go when we have actual numbers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAPyFy2BSU%2B8-TWh53z_FT-z2NCsCDU6=%2Bi_-OH6MJTxo2dqhpw>