llvm dev - Jun 2017 - Cannot build Clang/LLVM on Windows with LLVM_BUILD_LLVM_DYLIB

On 10 June 2017 at 21:04, biologi spm via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> clang.exe, clang++.exe, clang-cl.exe, clang-cl.exe and
> msbuild-bin/cl.exe are each 37MB, but they serve almost the same
> purpose, just receive different flavours of command flags.
On Unix systems these are all symlinks and so essentially free. I hear
Windows doesn't cope well with that though so it looks like we just
copy the files there.
> Can Clang/LLVM add a configuration similar to GCC?
That's probably best discussed on the cfe-dev mailing list. Doing it
optimally would involve substantial refactoring (essentially splitting
lib/Driver out into its own tool). I think you'd be lucky to get
anyone to sign up to work on that, but you might be able to convince
them patches are welcome.

Cheers.

Tim.

In the end I just deleted clang-cl.exe etc and create real Windows
symlink with "mklink clang-cl.exe clang.exe" (required administrator
permission). Works perfectly. Apparently these drivers inspect their
own name argv[0] before deciding what mode to run.

With this hack and ninja -C build install-clang install-clang-headers,
the resulting toolset is only 44MB, which is a great improvement when
compared with the default installation (380+MB).

Thanks for pointing out that these drivers are just symlinks!

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 10:29 PM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at
gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10 June 2017 at 21:04, biologi spm via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> clang.exe, clang++.exe, clang-cl.exe, clang-cl.exe and
>> msbuild-bin/cl.exe are each 37MB, but they serve almost the same
>> purpose, just receive different flavours of command flags.
>
> On Unix systems these are all symlinks and so essentially free. I hear
> Windows doesn't cope well with that though so it looks like we just
> copy the files there.
>
>> Can Clang/LLVM add a configuration similar to GCC?
>
> That's probably best discussed on the cfe-dev mailing list. Doing it
> optimally would involve substantial refactoring (essentially splitting
> lib/Driver out into its own tool). I think you'd be lucky to get
> anyone to sign up to work on that, but you might be able to convince
> them patches are welcome.
>
> Cheers.
>
> Tim.

For what it's worth, Windows 10 Creators Update (version 1703) and up allow
you
to create symbolic links without elevation if you've enabled developer mode.

On 6/11/17, 10:07 PM, "llvm-dev on behalf of biologi spm via llvm-dev"
<llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org on behalf of llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:

    In the end I just deleted clang-cl.exe etc and create real Windows
    symlink with "mklink clang-cl.exe clang.exe" (required
administrator
    permission). Works perfectly. Apparently these drivers inspect their
    own name argv[0] before deciding what mode to run.
    
    With this hack and ninja -C build install-clang install-clang-headers,
    the resulting toolset is only 44MB, which is a great improvement when
    compared with the default installation (380+MB).
    
    Thanks for pointing out that these drivers are just symlinks!
    
    On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 10:29 PM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at
gmail.com> wrote:
    > On 10 June 2017 at 21:04, biologi spm via llvm-dev
    > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
    >> clang.exe, clang++.exe, clang-cl.exe, clang-cl.exe and
    >> msbuild-bin/cl.exe are each 37MB, but they serve almost the same
    >> purpose, just receive different flavours of command flags.
    >
    > On Unix systems these are all symlinks and so essentially free. I hear
    > Windows doesn't cope well with that though so it looks like we just
    > copy the files there.
    >
    >> Can Clang/LLVM add a configuration similar to GCC?
    >
    > That's probably best discussed on the cfe-dev mailing list. Doing
it
    > optimally would involve substantial refactoring (essentially splitting
    > lib/Driver out into its own tool). I think you'd be lucky to get
    > anyone to sign up to work on that, but you might be able to convince
    > them patches are welcome.
    >
    > Cheers.
    >
    > Tim.
    _______________________________________________
    LLVM Developers mailing list
    llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
   
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_llvm-2Ddev&d=DwIGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=0LIvfW5mUdT3ZmIPfwn0Aa2xlN0lu6RLOxyxDOrxmYY&s=iXZxWlDU8eX3QDP5eLAFLS_m0rTzRZbKo6dIXKvyQqQ&e=