On 13 April 2016 at 15:01, Nicolai Hähnle <[email protected]> wrote: > On 13.04.2016 08:25, Emil Velikov wrote: >> >> On 13 April 2016 at 00:17, Nicolai Hähnle <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 12.04.2016 12:58, Kenneth Graunke wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Arch Linux ships libLLVM.so.3.7.1 rather than libLLVM-3.7.1.so; >>>> Mesa's configure script failed to find LLVM shared libraries in this >>>> case. I believe they build LLVM with CMake, but there is still only >>>> one .so file. >>>> >> We had a similar patch [1] from the Archlinux maintainer and we sort >> of rejected it. Why ? >> >> Because it's a bug in the cmake build which (iirc) was fixed with LLVM >> 3.8. Shame that LLVM 3.7 series is busted with autoconf, thus one is >> forced to use cmake ahead of autoconf deprecation (with 3.8). >> >> Tom, I am a bit out of my waters here - can someone familiar with LLVM >> flesh out a backport for the 3.7 (and 3.8?) series ? >> Pretty please :-) >> >>>> Signed-off-by: Kenneth Graunke <[email protected]> >>>> --- >>>> configure.ac | 6 ++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> This is mostly a strawman. llvmpipe hasn't built on my system for >>>> quite some time, and I finally got around to figuring out why. I don't >>>> know much about LLVM build issues (it seems complicated), so feel free >>>> to throw this patch out and do it properly... >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm not that big on build system twiddling, so feel free to ignore me, >>> but... why aren't we using $LLVM_CONFIG --libs here? >>> >> Because --libs produces >> - llvm 3.4 and earlier - the static libraries (modules) and their >> dependencies (system libs) >> - llvm 3.5 and later only the static libraries (modules) >> >> Neither of which is what we want in case of building against shared >> LLVM. They are used when static linking LLVM. > > > Interesting. On my own build, `llvm-config --libs` produces the shared > library, which is why I asked. OTOH, on the system LLVM, it produces the > static libs even though the system installation also includes the shared > libs. So yeah, this means it's unusable in its current form. > I know about the experimental option of LLVM producing multiple (split) shared libraries, although your experience sounds quite new to me. Thanks that, had no idea it was possible.
-Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
