Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "gnuless".
Did you mean:
nuless
2015 Jul 27
2
[LLVMdev] Linking tools
...tools block LTO and linked binaries in
general. For my target, manually running llvm-link and llc is the
only way to get LTO-like output, but otherwise works pretty well.
For this same reason, I get worried when I hear maintainers state that
llvm-link, llc, llvm-mc, etc are developer only tools. GNUless
targets use these tools for production code for lack of working
alternatives.
If there's been recent progress on removing GNU dependencies, I'm all ears.
Cheers,
-steve
2015 Jul 27
0
[LLVMdev] Linking tools
...ed binaries in
> general. For my target, manually running llvm-link and llc is the
> only way to get LTO-like output, but otherwise works pretty well.
>
> For this same reason, I get worried when I hear maintainers state that
> llvm-link, llc, llvm-mc, etc are developer only tools. GNUless
> targets use these tools for production code for lack of working
> alternatives.
>
> If there's been recent progress on removing GNU dependencies, I'm all ears.
>
Basically, LTO for projects that have pre-compiled objects requires
integration with a real static linker. Curr...
2015 Jul 27
0
[LLVMdev] Linking tools
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 7:24 AM, Russell Wallace <russell.wallace at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:39 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 3:37 PM Russell Wallace <
>> russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm trying to figure out exactly what the
2015 Jul 27
3
[LLVMdev] Linking tools
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:39 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 3:37 PM Russell Wallace <russell.wallace at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to figure out exactly what the function and status of the
>> different linking tools is. The impression I get is:
>>
>> 1. For linking multiple bitcode