On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote:> It's not clear to me that this is worthwhile.I'd think you'd see value when new languages get off the ground faster because they don't need to think about linking. Dealing with all the subtle differences between the various system linkers is no fun. Maybe that's not a ton of value, but as I mentioned, the integration is not a ton of work either.> Right now LLVM has no linker dependencyCorrect, a linker dependency is not required. But by comparison, binutils ships similar tools to llvm, but it also ships a linker. -Greg
On 29 Jan 2015, at 19:05, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote:> > I'd think you'd see value when new languages get off the ground faster > because they don't need to think about linking. Dealing with all the > subtle differences between the various system linkers is no fun. > Maybe that's not a ton of value, but as I mentioned, the integration > is not a ton of work either.I think that you're conflating two issues: - Should there be a set of libraries that allow language developers to turn IR into executables / shared libraries easily? - Should these libraries be part of the core LLVM repository? I don't think anyone will disagree with the first one. I believe that lld aims to provide such libraries and I hope to be able to use them. The question is whether these need to be part of the core LLVM distribution. The C front end isn't, yet there's equally an argument that using the clang libraries makes implementing an FFI for a new language easier. David
30.01.2015, 12:12, "David Chisnall" <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk>:> On 29 Jan 2015, at 19:05, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote: >> I'd think you'd see value when new languages get off the ground faster >> because they don't need to think about linking. Dealing with all the >> subtle differences between the various system linkers is no fun. >> Maybe that's not a ton of value, but as I mentioned, the integration >> is not a ton of work either. > > I think that you're conflating two issues: > > - Should there be a set of libraries that allow language developers to turn IR into executables / shared libraries easily? > > - Should these libraries be part of the core LLVM repository? > > I don't think anyone will disagree with the first one. I believe that lld aims to provide such libraries and I hope to be able to use them.IMO, such "set of libraries that allow language developers to turn IR into executables / shared libraries easily" would be more useful if it could use system linker. -- Regards, Konstantin