On 6 Jan 2013, at 20:38, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
You can't seriously blame LLVM for making progress. If ports rely on a
specific version of LLVM, it would be far better to create devel/llvm31,
devel/llvm32 etc.
Well, I can (and, even with my LLVM committer hat on, do) blame LLVM for not
While working with an OpenCL port that is depending on LLVM 3.2, I feel
very uncomfortable haveng to have devel/llvm-devel installed while the
official release of LLVM is 3.2. The port devel/llvm is still the older
3.1. Is this going to be changed? I guess it must be synchronized with
FreeBSD
Den 06/01/2013 kl. 13.55 skrev O. Hartmann ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de:
While FreeBSD's
base system already has LLVM/CLANG, it is missing some important LLVM
pieces, like llvm-config and others.
llvm-config is a build dependency that spits out some lib paths that you can
just hard-code for
On 2013-01-06 13:55, O. Hartmann wrote:
While working with an OpenCL port that is depending on LLVM 3.2, I feel
very uncomfortable haveng to have devel/llvm-devel installed while the
official release of LLVM is 3.2.
Please prod the port maintainer (Brooks) to update the llvm port
instead. I
On 2013-01-06 15:16, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
...
I think the real problem is that LLVM and the related tools are build in one
go, so you can't easily build llvm-config and others for the base version of
LLVM.
Well, it would be easy enough to build llvm-config, but what should its
output be?
Am 01/06/13 15:52, schrieb Dimitry Andric:
On 2013-01-06 13:55, O. Hartmann wrote:
While working with an OpenCL port that is depending on LLVM 3.2, I feel
very uncomfortable haveng to have devel/llvm-devel installed while the
official release of LLVM is 3.2.
Please prod the port maintainer
Am 01/06/13 15:57, schrieb Dimitry Andric:
On 2013-01-06 15:16, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
...
I think the real problem is that LLVM and the related tools are build
in one go, so you can't easily build llvm-config and others for the
base version of LLVM.
Well, it would be easy enough to build
Am 01/06/13 15:52, schrieb Dimitry Andric:
On 2013-01-06 13:55, O. Hartmann wrote:
While working with an OpenCL port that is depending on LLVM 3.2, I feel
very uncomfortable haveng to have devel/llvm-devel installed while the
official release of LLVM is 3.2.
Please prod the port maintainer
On 6 Jan 2013, at 12:55, O. Hartmann wrote:
Having a crippled LLVM aboard AND the need having installed a port is a
kind of none-sense. Why should I install port devel/llvm to have a
working LLVM backend?
The issue is the same as the issue for anything in the FreeBSD base system,
which is:
Am 01/06/13 17:49, schrieb David Chisnall:
On 6 Jan 2013, at 12:55, O. Hartmann wrote:
Having a crippled LLVM aboard AND the need having installed a port is a
kind of none-sense. Why should I install port devel/llvm to have a
working LLVM backend?
The issue is the same as the issue for
On 6 Jan 2013 14:57, Dimitry Andric d...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 2013-01-06 15:16, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
...
I think the real problem is that LLVM and the related tools are build in
one go, so you can't easily build llvm-config and others for the base
version of LLVM.
Well, it would be
Den 06/01/2013 kl. 18.25 skrev O. Hartmann ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de:
In contrast, LLVM changes the ABI (and API!) significantly between point
releases. We therefore don't want to encourage anything outside of the base
system to link against these libraries, because doing so would prevent
On 2013-01-06 21:38, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
Den 06/01/2013 kl. 18.25 skrev O. Hartmann ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de:
In contrast, LLVM changes the ABI (and API!) significantly between point
releases. We therefore don't want to encourage anything outside of the base
system to link against
While it is only remotely related, it looks like MFC of 3.2 for STABLE
should be around the corner?
--
View this message in context:
http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/LLVM-3-2-official-stable-port-is-still-LLVM-3-1-Basesystem-missing-important-LLVM-pieces-tp5775141p5775300.html
Sent from
On 2013-01-07 00:07, Jakub Lach wrote:
While it is only remotely related, it looks like MFC of 3.2 for STABLE
should be around the corner?
I'm postponing the MFC of 3.2, until we find the exact cause of the
libgcc problem (1).
-Dimitry
1)
15 matches
Mail list logo