llvm dev - Jan 2016 - Building SVN head with CMake - shared libraries?

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Ismail Donmez <ismail at i10z.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:59 AM, Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com>
wrote:
>> I’m kinda scared that you’re using it. What are you trying to
accomplish
>> that you are using it? Generally having LLVM split among that many
>> dynamically loaded libraries results in significant performance
regressions.
>
> When we first switched to cmake it was the only option to produce
> shared libraries, hence we went with it. I am testing with
> -DLLVM_BUILD_LLVM_DYLIB=ON -DLLVM_LINK_LLVM_DYLIB=ON atm, and will let
> you know if any problem arises.
And one immediate "problem" shows up. I ended up with

libLLVM-3.9svn.so

and

libclang.so
libclang.so.3.9

LLVM's shared lib naming looks wrong.

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Ismail Donmez <ismail at i10z.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Ismail Donmez <ismail at i10z.com>
wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:59 AM, Chris Bieneman <beanz at
apple.com> wrote:
>>> I’m kinda scared that you’re using it. What are you trying to
accomplish
>>> that you are using it? Generally having LLVM split among that many
>>> dynamically loaded libraries results in significant performance
regressions.
>>
>> When we first switched to cmake it was the only option to produce
>> shared libraries, hence we went with it. I am testing with
>> -DLLVM_BUILD_LLVM_DYLIB=ON -DLLVM_LINK_LLVM_DYLIB=ON atm, and will let
>> you know if any problem arises.
>
> And one immediate "problem" shows up. I ended up with
>
> libLLVM-3.9svn.so
>
> and
>
> libclang.so
> libclang.so.3.9
>
> LLVM's shared lib naming looks wrong.
And one more thing, in this setup llvm-config --libs lists static
libraries which is a no-go because Linux distros in the 99% of the
case want to ship only shared libraries.

Regards,
ismail

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 at 18:19 Ismail Donmez via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Ismail Donmez <ismail at i10z.com>
wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Ismail Donmez <ismail at
i10z.com> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:59 AM, Chris Bieneman <beanz at
apple.com>
> wrote:
> >>> I’m kinda scared that you’re using it. What are you trying to
> accomplish
> >>> that you are using it? Generally having LLVM split among that
many
> >>> dynamically loaded libraries results in significant
performance
> regressions.
> >>
> >> When we first switched to cmake it was the only option to produce
> >> shared libraries, hence we went with it. I am testing with
> >> -DLLVM_BUILD_LLVM_DYLIB=ON -DLLVM_LINK_LLVM_DYLIB=ON atm, and will
let
> >> you know if any problem arises.
> >
> > And one immediate "problem" shows up. I ended up with
> >
> > libLLVM-3.9svn.so
> >
> > and
> >
> > libclang.so
> > libclang.so.3.9
> >
> > LLVM's shared lib naming looks wrong.
>
Wrong because they're inconsistent? libLLVM was changed recently
(major.minor added to library name) to match what autotools builds did.

And one more thing, in this setup llvm-config --libs lists
static
> libraries which is a no-go because Linux distros in the 99% of the
> case want to ship only shared libraries.
>
Same problem with autotools builds. I have a couple of patches that will
fix this:
   http://reviews.llvm.org/D15033 (reverted due to bug, fixed by below)
   http://reviews.llvm.org/D15986

Regards,
> ismail
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160115/68fd850e/attachment.html>