similar to: [LLVMdev] proposal to avoid zlib dependency.

It might not be available, so all codepaths have to recover from zlib unavailability. For example, I don't think compressed DWARF works on Windows. On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Filip Pizlo <fpizlo at apple.com> wrote: > What is the downside of Zlib dependency? I'm curious! :-) > > -Filip > > On Sep 16, 2014, at 2:45 PM, Christophe Duvernois < >

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote: > If you build with configure+make, just run configure with —disable-zlib. > We do this routinely, so I’m pretty sure it works. > It "works" as in it builds. However, the support for it is disabled since zlib::compress will always return StatusUnsupported, so the debug information will just not

Hi, There are very good reasons why packaging an external library is a big headache in general. However, for zlib it's not so bad for several reasons. 1 zlib is stable, code and file format. The last release is 1.5 years old. Manually updating the zlib sources once or twice a year is trivial. 2 For llvm, there should not be a problem with possible security exploits forcing quick patch, as

On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Dan Liew <dan at su-root.co.uk> wrote: > On 18 September 2014 16:59, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > > I also want to point out that there is prior art for bundling these > types of > > single-source-file utility libraries in lib/Support. We have MD5.cpp, > > ConvertUTF.cpp, and reg*.c implementing various bits of

I also want to point out that there is prior art for bundling these types of single-source-file utility libraries in lib/Support. We have MD5.cpp, ConvertUTF.cpp, and reg*.c implementing various bits of functionality. Adding a miniz.c doesn't seem like that big of a deal. On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 3:03 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 12:27:42PM +0300, Yaron Keren wrote: > Large software libraries like OpenCV (under 3rdparty directory) do include > copies of zlib and friends and build it, for that reasons. The source code > is just half a megabyte and I think the license is compatible. We could do > the same with zlib or miniz. >From a packager's perspective, library bundling is one

Once LLVM is built and used as a dylib, we'd just mark the zlib symbols as hidden. :-) I tend to think that bundling is ugly because it makes it harder for a distributor or integrator to pick the exact versions of all of the components in the system. I don't know if this was mentioned already, but maybe we can have a compromise where a configure option can be used to select between the

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: > IIUC zlib availability is tested and the library used if present. Do you > mean that LLVM does not use zlib on Windows when the library is present? Sure, but if there aren't instructions for how to do it easily, then it's effectively unsupported. There isn't really a canonical way to

There is still one reason this should NOT be done: If some other library which uses LLVM wants to use zlib (either the system version or one built by hand) we will have linker issues with multiple definition, as LLVM only works with static libraries on Windows. Unless LLVM uses a custom prefix for its internal ZLib, which would “only” lead to more binary bloat. -- Johannes S. Mueller-Roemer, MSc

Ok thanks, I thought there was a more direct way to do it... 2012/11/19 Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> > llvm-extract and then llc? > > -eric > > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Christophe Duvernois < > christophe.duvernois at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi >> >> I use llvm-3.1. I have a large module and i want to emit native code

On 19/11/12 22:31, Christophe Duvernois wrote: > Ok thanks, > I thought there was a more direct way to do it... I think this is supposed to be possible. llvm-gcc had logic for emitting code for each function immediately after generating it, but it was ifdef'd out with the remark that it was buggy. You might want to take a look at how llvm-gcc was trying to do it. Since no-one is

Hi I use llvm-3.1. I have a large module and i want to emit native code (or assembly) for one function. I tried to replace the PassManager in llc by a FunctionPassManager but I have a crash so this is probably not the good way to do it. (cf attached my simple test) Is it possible to write one function from the module? What is the good way to do it? Thanks in advance. Christophe --------------

llvm-extract and then llc? -eric On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Christophe Duvernois < christophe.duvernois at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi > > I use llvm-3.1. I have a large module and i want to emit native code (or > assembly) for one function. > > I tried to replace the PassManager in llc by a FunctionPassManager but I > have a crash so this is probably not the good

Hi Speaking about a good existing build system in python, there is waf : http://code.google.com/p/waf/ It is in my opinion far more better than cmake on any point (performance, flexibility, easy to use, ...) ... 2012/6/21 Jean-Daniel Dupas <devlists at shadowlab.org> > > Le 21 juin 2012 à 11:34, Manuel Klimek a écrit : > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Charles Davis

21.06.2012, 14:43, "Christophe Duvernois" <christophe.duvernois at gmail.com>: > Hi > > Speaking about a good existing build system in python, there is waf : http://code.google.com/p/waf/ > It is in my opinion far more better than cmake on any point (performance, flexibility, easy to use, ...) ... I propose premake [1]. It also has nice performance, flexibility, and

Le 21 juin 2012 à 11:34, Manuel Klimek a écrit : > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Charles Davis <cdavis at mymail.mines.edu> wrote: > > On Jun 20, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com> wrote: >> Is there anybody who is certain that our autoconf dependency needs to stay around?

On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 6:30 PM, Filip Pizlo <fpizlo at apple.com> wrote: > > > On June 7, 2014 at 1:29:04 PM, Alp Toker (alp at nuanti.com) wrote: > > > On 07/06/2014 18:35, Filip Pizlo wrote: >> That would work. :-) >> >> What about exposing C API a function to query for the presence of an >> intrinsic? > > It seems with hindsight that the

On 7 June 2014 00:14, Filip Pizlo <fpizlo at apple.com> wrote: > The only setback is to ensure that we synchronize the renaming with WebKit. > > The WebKit->LLVM interface currently avoids revision-lock; you can take any > recent revision of either and build a working browser engine. This is mostly > true even when we change the stack map format because of versioning in the

Hi I create a simple bytecode file with clang -c -emit-llvm test.c -o test.bc #include <stdio.h> void hello(){ printf("hello\n"); } void hello2(){ printf("hello2\n"); } Then i want to keep only the hello function so i do : llvm-extract -func=hello -o test2.bc test.bc but the string constants are removed and "@.str" is marked as external @str

Hi, Please find attached a short c test program which does not behave correctly with clang 3.9. I'm running ubuntu 16.04 64bit clang bug.c ./a.out for gcc 5.4.0 / clang3.8 output: 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 ./a.out for clang3.9 output: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Is that a regression? Regards, Christophe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: