[LLVMdev] LLVM as a DLL

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

Owen:

Can you clarify what kinds of dynamic linker issues you are seeing? I
speculate that cross-library dependency resolution is high on the list,
but what else?

shap

On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 21:44 -0500, Owen Anderson wrote:
> On May 13, 2008, at 9:22 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> > Owen:
> >
> > This is not correct. As the API stabilizes, it will become  
> > increasingly
> > attractive to package LLVM as dynamic libraries.
> >
> > One consequence of continuous compilation is that there is a
> > progressively larger body of tools that need to be "in on the joke"
> > about compilation at various stages. This is particularly true about
> > things like JIT engines, wherein every single process may need a
> > completely redundant copy of the LLVM libraries.
> >
> > So if linkers choke on LLVM, we either need to submit upstream patches
> > on those linkers or reconfigure the LLVM libraries so that things do  
> > not
> > choke.
> >
> 
> We do in fact produce one shared library: libLTO, which contains the  
> parts necessary for implementing link-time optimization in a linker,  
> for just the reasons you pointed out above. ;-)
> 
> --Owen
> _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev