llvm dev - May 2008 - [LLVMdev] LLVM as a DLL

Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> writes:
> On May 13, 2008, at 1:30 AM, kr512 wrote:
>>
>> Nevertheless, LLVM is not provided as a ready-to-use DLL,
>> unfortunately.
>
> This is exactly why I asked if you had downloaded and compiled it.  If  
> you had, you might have noticed that it does produce a set of ready-to- 
> use shared libraries.  I'm sorry that it did not build for you under  
> Visual Studio, but patches are welcome.  In the mean time, please feel  
> free to use the supported alternative of compiling under MinGW.
Last time I checked, building LLVM on Windows (MinGW or MSVC) did not
produce dlls.

Has this changed?

I was succesful converting the libraries produced by MinGW to dlls,
though.

-- 
Oscar

On May 13, 2008, at 6:38 PM, Óscar Fuentes wrote:
> Last time I checked, building LLVM on Windows (MinGW or MSVC) did not
> produce dlls.
>
> Has this changed?
>
> I was succesful converting the libraries produced by MinGW to dlls,
> though.
>
It's a little bit immaterial whether they're shared or static  
libraries, since one would be distributing them bundled with your  
compiler anyways.  But yes, they are static because certain dynamic  
linkers choke on them when done dynamically.

--Owen
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4260 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080513/226e7b01/attachment.bin>

On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 21:03 -0500, Owen Anderson wrote:
> On May 13, 2008, at 6:38 PM, Óscar Fuentes wrote:
> > Last time I checked, building LLVM on Windows (MinGW or MSVC) did not
> > produce dlls.
> >
> > Has this changed?
> >
> > I was succesful converting the libraries produced by MinGW to dlls,
> > though.
> >
> 
> It's a little bit immaterial whether they're shared or static  
> libraries, since one would be distributing them bundled with your  
> compiler anyways.
Owen:

This is not correct. As the API stabilizes, it will become increasingly
attractive to package LLVM as dynamic libraries.

One consequence of continuous compilation is that there is a
progressively larger body of tools that need to be "in on the joke"
about compilation at various stages. This is particularly true about
things like JIT engines, wherein every single process may need a
completely redundant copy of the LLVM libraries.

So if linkers choke on LLVM, we either need to submit upstream patches
on those linkers or reconfigure the LLVM libraries so that things do not
choke.


shap

Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> writes:
> On May 13, 2008, at 6:38 PM, Óscar Fuentes wrote:
>> Last time I checked, building LLVM on Windows (MinGW or MSVC) did not
>> produce dlls.
>>
>> Has this changed?
>>
>> I was succesful converting the libraries produced by MinGW to dlls,
>> though.
>
> It's a little bit immaterial whether they're shared or static
> libraries, since one would be distributing them bundled with your
> compiler anyways.  But yes, they are static because certain dynamic
> linkers choke on them when done dynamically.
If I ever distribute LLVM with my compiler, shared libraries are an
absolute requirement. LLVM is big, my compiler is updated from time to
time, and some users have no access to broadband.

In my agenda, using LLVM for production means either introducing support
for building dll's with MSVC++, or swithing to MinGW.

-- 
Oscar