[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: How should Clang/LLVM runtime libraries be installed and found during link steps?

John Criswell criswell at illinois.edu
Wed Nov 23 06:55:44 PST 2011

On 11/23/2011 2:18 AM, Ruben Van Boxem wrote:
> [snip]
>     Should runtime libraries be installed as archives? .o files? .so
>     files? (gasp) bitcode? Some mixture of these? What mixture, and
>     how do we decide? I lean  toward .o files as bitcode where the
>     linker supports it, normal .o files where it supports those, and
>     .a files only as a fallback. Not very confident of these
>     preferences though.
> libraries -> .a/so files... They're target specific anyways, why even 
> consider bitcode?

Bitcode libraries allow their code to be inter-procedurally optimized by 
libLTO.  For example, we used to compile libstdc++ in llvm-gcc to 
bitcode; this allowed us to inline C++ standard library functions into 
the main program and perform optimizations such as dead code 
elimination, inter-procedural constant propagation, etc, etc.

-- John T.

> Ruben
>     _______________________________________________
>     cfe-dev mailing list
>     cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>
>     http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20111123/6d12e6d5/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list