LLVM 3.2: official stable port is still LLVM 3.1. Basesystem missing important LLVM pieces!

O. Hartmann ohartman at zedat.fu-berlin.de
Sun Jan 6 15:52:46 UTC 2013

Am 01/06/13 15:57, schrieb Dimitry Andric:
> On 2013-01-06 15:16, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
> ...
>> I think the real problem is that LLVM and the related tools are build
>> in one go, so you can't easily build llvm-config and others for the
>> base version of LLVM.
> Well, it would be easy enough to build llvm-config, but what should its
> output be?  We do not install llvm/clang headers or libraries into the
> system, so llvm-config would not give any meaningful -I or -L flags. :)

The problem at this point is that I personally do not exactly understand
the real dependency of the software i try to build as a port (POCL, now
RC2 at sourceforge). The build system requires llvm-config and I guess
the LLVM backend for the LLVM IR for the target (at the moment, only the

>> llvm-config needs shared libraries that are not installed in base
>> because they supposedly require a prohibitive amount of build time.
> Again, build time is not the problem.  The libraries are already built,
> but in static form; making them dynamic would not be that difficult, but
> installing them would add another maintenance and compatibility burden.
>> The LLVM port could be split up instead. There could be a
>> devel/llvm-libs port that installed the shared libs for the base LLVM,
>> and then a devel/llvm-config, devel/scan-build or devel/mclinker port
>> that depends on the former port.
> Yes, this seems to be the proper approach.  But, as far as I understand,
> the ports system cannot yet do one work tree build, and package that up
> in different packages, such as -libs, -devel, and so on.

Why splitting up? My problem is NOT the compile time, the burden on an
oldish Intel Core2Duo E8400 is not that much and I'm, personally, have
installed the port devel/llvm-devel. So I guess now I reeled in
everything I need and want to have (without exactly knowing what to need).

My question was to have the whole thing in the base. But you made clear
this is more an disadvantage than advantage.

>> This might require that a larger part of the LLVM source tree is
>> imported into src/contrib, though.
> I am not sure what you mean by this.  Why would the ports require
> something in the base system, other than a compiler?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20130106/1f851199/attachment.sig>

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list