On Dec 23, 2007, at 4:24 PM, Sanghyeon Seo wrote: > 2007/12/24, Chris Lattner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> There is a bigger question though: do we want to link more and more >> llvm libraries into clang at this point? In addition to the bitcode >> writer, you'd eventually want the codegen and target libraries as >> well. The bigger issue with this is that it increases link times of >> clang and most people aren't using it right now. > > I'd like to point out that bitcode writer was already linked with > clang (I suppose for use with AST serialization) and my patch didn't > increase link time at all.
Ok! >> For now, if you want the bcwriter, I'd say go ahead and add it. If >> you want the target libraries though, I'd suggest building them >> together into a single "backend" dylib/so file that is loaded by >> clang. That way we can rebuild clang without relinking all the llvm >> pieces. > > How do I do that? :) I'm not sure what the best way is :). > By the way, my idea was to have a wrapper script that behaves like > gcc, which calls clang -emit-bc for gcc -c and llvm-ld -native for gcc > linking. Sure, that sounds like a good short-term solution. Longer term, Anton is working on revamping the 'llvmc' tool into a proper compiler driver, which should solve some of these problems. > What is the difference between running opt on individual bitcode files > and running llvm-ld -O2 over all bitcode files? They run a very different set of optimization passes. -Chris _______________________________________________ cfe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
