Why not provide libclang.so in base?

[Brooks Davis]

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 09:31:04AM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 2012-07-18 14:54, Yanhui Shen wrote:
> > I'm using clang-complete plugin in vim,
> > it claims with libclang.so instead of bin/clang it works better.
> > 
> > However libclang.so is not installed by a default "make buildworld && make
> > installworld",
> > even with 'WITH_CLANG_EXTRAS="YES"' in src.conf.
> 
> This is because it would add quite a lot of build overhead to produce
> that .so file: all the object files will need to be recompiled yet again
> for shared library support.
> 
> That said, we will probably want to provide at least a shared LLVM lib
> in the future, since it can be re-used by other programs.  When that
> happens, it would not be too much extra work to provide a shared Clang
> library.

When I talked to Chris Lattner about shared libraries, his advice was
that under no circumstances should we consider supporting any C++ APIs
from the base system.  We can link tools in the system with them and we
can provide supportable C API wrappers as Apple does, but any port that
links against a libclang.so or libLLVM.so is doomed to break so ports
should link against port versions so they can be updated as needed.

-- Brooks
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20120726/e3c80f5a/attachment.pgp