[llvm-dev] r250501 adds dependancy to ole32.dll on MSVC
Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Dec 23 12:28:03 PST 2015
On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Aaron Ballman via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Jakob Bornecrantz <wallbraker at gmail.com>
> > On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com>
> >> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Jakob Bornecrantz via llvm-dev
> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >>> I'm building on Windows x64 using cmake, Ninja and VS 2013 express on
> Windows 7.
> >>> So I have been using the LLVMSharp method on getting a usable loadable
> >>> LLVM.dll.
One day, I would like to make it easier to make LLVM.dll...
> > Further investigation show that for the MinGW build OLE32 is added to
> > the dependencies for LLVMSupport.lib in the CMakeLists.txt file, there
> > are a couple of other libraries added as well. This lead me to find
> > that those where added for the MSVC build with a pragma(lib, xx), so I
> > added such a pragma for OLE32 and that fixes my script that is
> > generating LLVM.dll, will also fix other peoples problems with OLE32
> > missing as well.
> Generally speaking, static libraries like LLVMSupport are just an
> archive of a bunch of compiled object files, and whatever ultimately
> consumes that library is responsible for providing external
> definitions. So, for instance, clang.exe consumes LLVMSupport.lib and
> so it also links in OLE32. I believe that we usually only use
> #pragma(lib) to signal that non-standard libraries need to be linked
> in, otherwise every source file in an archive would wind up with an
> unwieldy number of pragmas for all its imports, or you would have to
> manually maintain that list in some common header file. I don't think
> that the pragma(lib) for advapi32.lib should be there either, FWIW,
> but I don't know that we've ever had a hard-and-fast rule for this
> sort of thing.
Sure, but the fact that static libraries can't encode their dependencies
has always been an annoying missing feature, not something that we want to
follow if we can avoid it.
> I'm not opposed to this patch, per se, but it feels like a slippery
> slope as to what makes the cut and what does not. I would rather see
> *less* non-standard pragma usage instead of more.
For these kinds of DLLs that are available on all modern versions of
Windows, I think it's perfectly reasonable to use the 'pragma comment lib'
auto linking mechanism. Realistically, no consumer of LLVMSupport.lib is
going to be surprised if it needs ole32.dll.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev