[LLVMdev] To APR Or Not To APR. That is the question.

[Reid Spencer]

On Thu, 2004-09-16 at 07:36, Vikram Adve wrote:
> Reid,
> 
> Adding APR as one possible implementation of lib/System makes
> sense,and is what I originally suggested when I brought up the
> question ofusing APR.  In particular, I agree that we want to keep APR
> or anyother similar layer encapsulated behind lib/System.

Yes.

What I might do is send the APR email list a "wish list" of things we'd
like to see. If/when they get implemented on enough platforms, I could
do the port. Doing it now is just silly because there's such little
support for things we need.

Reid.

> 
> --Vikram
> http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/~vadve
> http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/
> 
> 
> On Sep 13, 2004, at 10:34 AM, Reid Spencer wrote:
> 
>         John,
>         
>         If we were to do this, I don't think that adding it to the
>         LLVM source
>         base is the right way to go. We would simply use "configure"
>         to findthe
>         library and header files. The moment we put APR into our
>         source base,it
>         would be out of date. Keeping it up to date would not be fun
>         for anyone
>         and there's no reason for us to do that.  Furthermore, this
>         approach
>         completely avoids any licensing issues. We wouldn't distribute
>         APR,just
>         use it (even though Apache's license is relatively tame).
>         
>         As for other libraries, there is boost (which we've already
>         excised),
>         and ACE (which is huge and heavy weight). APR is the rising
>         star inthis
>         area.
>         
>         I think Chris had the right idea: make APR "one" of the
>         possible
>         implementations. That is, make it possible for the user to
>         configure
>         LLVM so that it thinks the operating system its building for
>         is "APR".
>         All we have to do is create an APR directory in lib/System and
>         the
>         necessary functions in configure.ac to allow it to be
>         specified as the
>         host operating system. I think I might do this regardless of
>         what the
>         decision on this issue is because it would at least give new
>         platforms a
>         shot at having LLVM work.
>         
>         Reid.
>         
>         On Mon, 2004-09-13 at 08:18, John Criswell wrote:
>                 Dear All,
>                 
>                 Time to add my two cents:
>                 
>                 I think incorporating something like APR into the LLVM
>                 tree is fine, 
>                 given that it works, its licensing doesn't interefere
>                 with ourlicensing 
>                 (and doesn't give me a headache), and we can merge it
>                 into the LLVM 
>                 source base relatively seamlessly (i.e. users don't
>                 need to install it 
>                 before building LLVM and APR plays nice with our build
>                 system).
>                 
>                 I think building our own lib/System is going to be a
>                 bit of a timesink, 
>                 especially with our limited access to other
>                 platforms.  And addingthird 
>                 party libraries is okay as long as the user doesn't
>                 have to install 
>                 extra stuff to use LLVM.
>                 
>                 The licensing, I think, will be okay.  The remainder
>                 of the problemlies 
>                 with how well APR works and how well it will integrate
>                 with our build 
>                 system.  For that, I think we'll simply have to try it
>                 out and see ifit 
>                 works.
>                 
>                 Are there any other libraries available that will do
>                 the things weneed 
>                 to do?  It strikes me that we haven't enumerated what
>                 we need and what 
>                 our options are.
>                 
>                 If we go ahead and do incorporate APR, I would
>                 recommend the following:
>                 
>                 a) Keep APR as a separate library and write lib/System
>                 as a wrapper 
>                 around it.
>                 
>                 b) Maintain a vendor branch for APR so that changes
>                 from the Apache 
>                 Foundation are more easily merged into the tree (the
>                 CVS docs describe 
>                 how to do this in the "Tracking Third Party Sources"
>                 section).
>                 
>                 -- John T.
>         _______________________________________________
>         LLVM Developers mailing list
>         LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>         http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20040916/6cf8808b/attachment.sig>