mgorny abandoned this revision.
mgorny added a comment.
Works for me. I don't know if this even has a valid failure case, just felt
uneasy about having the obviously-wrong path in code.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23754
___
cfe-commits mailing list
chandlerc added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23754#580631, @mgorny wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23754#580620, @chandlerc wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure it really makes sense for the Clang driver to go hunting for
> > an LLVMgold.so from an unrelated build of Clang and LLVM.
> >
>
mgorny added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23754#580620, @chandlerc wrote:
> I'm not sure it really makes sense for the Clang driver to go hunting for an
> LLVMgold.so from an unrelated build of Clang and LLVM.
>
> The Clang driver is going to run a particular CC1 invocation, ask it
chandlerc added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23754#580612, @mgorny wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23754#580441, @chandlerc wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23754#580277, @mgorny wrote:
> >
> > > The difference is that LLVMgold.so is not used by LLVM or clang directly
mgorny added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23754#580441, @chandlerc wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23754#580277, @mgorny wrote:
>
> > The difference is that LLVMgold.so is not used by LLVM or clang directly
> > but by the system binutils, and so it must match the ABI of the
chandlerc added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23754#580277, @mgorny wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23754#580268, @beanz wrote:
>
> > @mgorny, I don't think LLVMgold qualifies as a runtime in the traditional
> > sense. It more closely aligns with the tools vended by LLVM even
mgorny added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23754#580268, @beanz wrote:
> @mgorny, I don't think LLVMgold qualifies as a runtime in the traditional
> sense. It more closely aligns with the tools vended by LLVM even though it is
> a shared library not an executable.
>
> Runtime
beanz added a comment.
@mgorny, I don't think LLVMgold qualifies as a runtime in the traditional
sense. It more closely aligns with the tools vended by LLVM even though it is a
shared library not an executable.
Runtime libraries are specifically libraries that products of clang are linked
mgorny added a reviewer: beanz.
mgorny added a subscriber: beanz.
mgorny added a comment.
@beanz, could you also look at this one? I'd like to replace
CLANG_LIBDIR_SUFFIX with the runtimes suffix, and for this I'd have to get rid
of this CLANG_LIBDIR_SUFFIX occurrence as well. However, I don't
mgorny added a comment.
@rafael, ping. Could you review this, please? This is the solution you
suggested on the bug.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23754
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
mgorny created this revision.
mgorny added a reviewer: rafael.
mgorny added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
Add CLANG_GOLD_LIBDIR_SUFFIX that defaults to ${LLVM_LIBDIR_SUFFIX}
and can be overriden if LLVMgold.so is installed elsewhere. The use case
are multilib systems where binutils is 64-bit and
11 matches
Mail list logo
