Hi Andrew, We're not testing that configuration so I'm not surprised that you're hitting problems. I'd like to look into it but we're working towards a release now and this isn't the most critical issue. For today, I recommend building without this flag.
Sincerely, Vince On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Andrew Wilkins <axw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm looking into updating the LLVM Debian packaging to use CMake instead > of autotools. I've hit some issues in building LLDB to do with the use of > BUILD_SHARED_LIBS. I thought I should email the list before proposing any > changes, as described below. > > Many of the libraries in LLDB are not specified as being shared or static > in the CMake files. If you set BUILD_SHARED_LIBS, then it will attempt to > build them as shared; this fails due to undefined library dependencies. I > looked at adding them, but found there were some circular dependencies > which made it a bit messy. Also, it doesn't seem very useful to build them > as shared objects. Since the Makefiles only support building the internal > libraries as static, I figure the CMake files should be updated to do the > same. > > With the internal libraries built as static archives, then lldb will build > successfully (with some minor dependency additions; pthread, dl, and LLVM's > runtimedyld component). There are then some issues with loading the Python > extension module. The extension module is a symlink to liblldb.so, whose > RPATH entries aren't valid relative to the symlink target. This can be > resolved by adding a symlink from lib/python<version>/site-packages/lib to > lib. > > Any issues? If not, I'll send a patch through soon. > > Cheers, > Andrew > > _______________________________________________ > lldb-dev mailing list > lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev > >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
