Michele Scandale
2014-May-26 18:54 UTC
[LLVMdev] compiler-rt: library paths and file names
Hi all, in my group we are working on compiler-rt and we would like to ask few clarifications: - is there a specific reason to not include in compiler-rt 'crt' related files (to generate crti.o, crtbegin.o, crtend.o, crtn.o and so on)? - about file naming: what was the ratio behind the choice to differentiate output files between architectures on a suffix basis instead of a directory basis? In example now we have the following: ${prefix}/lib/clang/${clang_version}/lib/${os}/libclang_rt.${arch}.a why this is better than something like ${prefix}/lib/clang/${clang_version}/lib/${arch}/${os}/libclang_rt.a ?>From the clang driver point of view this won't change nothing, but IMHO having adistinct folder for each target would better ensure a strong separation between libraries of different targets. Thanks in advance for the attention. Best regards, Michele Scandale
Saleem Abdulrasool
2014-May-27 14:10 UTC
[LLVMdev] compiler-rt: library paths and file names
On Monday, May 26, 2014, Michele Scandale <michele.scandale at gmail.com> wrote:> Hi all, > > in my group we are working on compiler-rt and we would like to ask few > clarifications: > - is there a specific reason to not include in compiler-rt 'crt' related > files > (to generate crti.o, crtbegin.o, crtend.o, crtn.o and so on)?The mentioned files are not compiler support files. They are part of the libc implementation. Each libc implementation has it's own data structures, and initialization needs. There is no reason that LLVM (nor compiler-rt) needs to be aware of any of that.> - about file naming: what was the ratio behind the choice to differentiate > output files between architectures on a suffix basis instead of a > directory basis? > > In example now we have the following: > > ${prefix}/lib/clang/${clang_version}/lib/${os}/libclang_rt.${arch}.a > > why this is better than something like > > ${prefix}/lib/clang/${clang_version}/lib/${arch}/${os}/libclang_rt.a > > ? > > From the clang driver point of view this won't change nothing, but IMHO > having a > distinct folder for each target would better ensure a strong separation > between > libraries of different targets. > > Thanks in advance for the attention. > > Best regards, > > Michele Scandale > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu <javascript:;> http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >-- Saleem Abdulrasool compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140527/e3ec7026/attachment.html>