llvm dev - Jan 2016 - Windows binaries and LLVM_INSTALL_TOOLCHAIN_ONLY

Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev <llvm-dev <at> lists.llvm.org> writes:
> This comes up now and then.
> 
> Yes, the packages would be a lot bigger, but IIRC the problem is also
> that we don't have a good way to build to build LLVM into a shared
> library on Windows that's suitable for shipping. I don't remember
the
> details here; maybe Reid does.
Some of the other platforms' binaries look like they also ship static
libraries, and that would be more useful than no libraries at all IMO.

I believe the issue with the dll build is marking symbols for dllexport.

-Tony

Tony Kelman via llvm-dev <llvm-dev <at> lists.llvm.org> writes:
> Some of the other platforms' binaries look like they also ship static
> libraries, and that would be more useful than no libraries at all IMO.
Should I take the silence here as a "no" on static libraries then?

On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 12:48 AM, Tony Kelman via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Tony Kelman via llvm-dev <llvm-dev <at> lists.llvm.org> writes:
>
>> Some of the other platforms' binaries look like they also ship
static
>> libraries, and that would be more useful than no libraries at all IMO.
>
> Should I take the silence here as a "no" on static libraries
then?
It seems me and Reid fell off the cc list, but yes - I'm not going to
look into shipping libraries at the moment.

 - Hans

Hi,

On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Tony Kelman via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Tony Kelman via llvm-dev <llvm-dev <at> lists.llvm.org> writes:
>
>> Some of the other platforms' binaries look like they also ship
static
>> libraries, and that would be more useful than no libraries at all IMO.
>
> Should I take the silence here as a "no" on static libraries
then?
I have some everything-included builds in https://i10z.com/llvm/win64/
, feel free to use them if they work for you.

Regards,
ismail