Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Andrew Benton wrote: > >> I'm reasonably confident that if I spent some time hacking at it I >> could get Llvm to compile with Clang and without the static libs. >> However, I lack the motivation to do it. To me, Llvm is a required dep >> of Mesa. I install Llvm, Mesa is happy, I move on, end of. Do we need >> to add Clang to Llvm? What does it do? > > It was suggested in ticket 3359. > > http://llvm.org/ > > It's an alternative c/c++ compiler. I don't suppose we don't have to add it, > but it was a request.
I've been thinking about this a little more. I see that llvm is an optional dependency of mesa. What does it add to mesa? As far as llvm goes, I see several potential options: 1. Leave it alone and ignore clang. 2. Provide instructions to build llvm/clang with static libraries. 3. Provide instructions to build llvm/clang with static and dynamic libraries. This is done with './configure --prefix=/opt/llvm --enable-shared' The executables are then dynamically linked. 4. As in 3, but explicitly remove the .a files. `rm /opt/llvm/lib/*.a` after make install. 5. Figure out a way to build llvm/clang with only dynamic libraries. I'm leaning towards #3, but would like other opinions. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
