Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 16 Dec 2014 16:15:09 +0000
From:      David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Migration to dynamic libs for llvm and clang
Message-ID:  <74C51AC7-B7ED-4EBC-8506-1554C7CA31FF@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <D359161D-B14C-4F19-8F0D-57FE530D0AF4@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <CAPyFy2DeLiFAW_yS14r1n89r92MFG1sbX88rNgaJshwH9-%2BkQg@mail.gmail.com> <41F09A1C-01D6-42C9-B495-244DFC2B0364@FreeBSD.org> <D359161D-B14C-4F19-8F0D-57FE530D0AF4@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 16 Dec 2014, at 16:04, Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> wrote:

> This is precisely why the libs should go into /usr/lib/private, so as =
to
> avoid collisions with any upstream libraries installed by e.g. ports =
(or
> when you manually run "make install" after building).

That's still potentially an issue if we add local tools that use =
libclang APIs (which we may well do).

> I'm not sure we want to go the 'libbsdfoo.so' route again, as Baptiste
> tried this before, and seems to have reversed it again. :)

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 =
with a library with an unstable C++ API).  They do produce a libLLVM.so =
from the LLVM builds and work is underway to have shared library builds =
for clang.

libLLVM.so could potentially be in /usr/lib in 11 if we have a packaged =
base system, as it would allow us to have different .so versions =
installed if things demanded them.  The point releases guarantee =
backwards ABI compatibility, so we can still upgrade to them if =
required.

> 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...

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.

David




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?74C51AC7-B7ED-4EBC-8506-1554C7CA31FF>