Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2013 16:52:44 +0100 From: "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de> To: Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Current FreeBSD <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>, Ports FreeBSD <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>, Erik Cederstrand <erik@cederstrand.dk> Subject: Re: LLVM 3.2: official stable port is still LLVM 3.1. Basesystem missing important LLVM pieces! Message-ID: <50E99DCC.1010504@zedat.fu-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <50E990DD.5040605@FreeBSD.org> References: <50E97457.7050809@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <0900DD62-3A21-4D77-8B5B-7976ACB3921B@cederstrand.dk> <50E990DD.5040605@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig5D96E0525AAB0B5F06460232 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am 01/06/13 15:57, schrieb Dimitry Andric: > On 2013-01-06 15:16, Erik Cederstrand wrote: > ... >> I think the real problem is that LLVM and the related tools are build >> in one go, so you can't easily build llvm-config and others for the >> base version of LLVM. >=20 > Well, it would be easy enough to build llvm-config, but what should its= > output be? We do not install llvm/clang headers or libraries into the > system, so llvm-config would not give any meaningful -I or -L flags. :)= The problem at this point is that I personally do not exactly understand the real dependency of the software i try to build as a port (POCL, now RC2 at sourceforge). The build system requires llvm-config and I guess the LLVM backend for the LLVM IR for the target (at the moment, only the CPU). >=20 >=20 >> llvm-config needs shared libraries that are not installed in base >> because they supposedly require a prohibitive amount of build time. >=20 > Again, build time is not the problem. The libraries are already built,= > but in static form; making them dynamic would not be that difficult, bu= t > installing them would add another maintenance and compatibility burden.= >=20 >=20 >> The LLVM port could be split up instead. There could be a >> devel/llvm-libs port that installed the shared libs for the base LLVM,= >> and then a devel/llvm-config, devel/scan-build or devel/mclinker port >> that depends on the former port. >=20 > Yes, this seems to be the proper approach. But, as far as I understand= , > the ports system cannot yet do one work tree build, and package that up= > in different packages, such as -libs, -devel, and so on. Why splitting up? My problem is NOT the compile time, the burden on an oldish Intel Core2Duo E8400 is not that much and I'm, personally, have installed the port devel/llvm-devel. So I guess now I reeled in everything I need and want to have (without exactly knowing what to need)= =2E My question was to have the whole thing in the base. But you made clear this is more an disadvantage than advantage. >=20 >=20 >> This might require that a larger part of the LLVM source tree is >> imported into src/contrib, though. >=20 > I am not sure what you mean by this. Why would the ports require > something in the base system, other than a compiler? --------------enig5D96E0525AAB0B5F06460232 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQ6Z3NAAoJEOgBcD7A/5N84lEIAOWOrXxytKaW6R9RI2E5zpsW J/LewxjY/9DzQzHnvTgvy/UqPw8rhlNGHsbpHthP2CCBF/St+iKZ+3MOyTEpPmuO h6KsOuol1eWH/KiiNt/4CiQmsITYSOCL+tTLj2TntK5Gap1yNVBcXRPaJsNeYYGt bt0+5NACdFpKoLStQD63WMkL2W0Ljx5fGQdjmjTfJ+NQP14bjLd9X164qIxsCVaD H/zdl2MXZdwEZItQ7dGTWi02kLz3XIS6OTR3la7UqajeI64fFDUrQTWY/21SmQf7 08OtIKj4qowvbazbXEGUVVnI9bd3VH9q0b5Au2LMt/vLE9NVSpO6i3P/wPSrKL0= =WBUV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig5D96E0525AAB0B5F06460232--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50E99DCC.1010504>