[llvm-dev] [CMake] LLVM_PROGRAM_PREFIX support

Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Jul 20 12:52:46 PDT 2016

I'm not against the idea, but why do we need prefixes at all?  I understand
with GCC the need to prefix with the target triple as it uses separate
programs for each target, but I think that is not the case with LLVM/CLang.


In any case, if prefixes are supported, why not universally apply to all
rather than having special exemptions that are going to make generalised
build configuration more difficult?




From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Sumanth
Gundapaneni via llvm-dev
Sent: 20 July 2016 20:48
To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Subject: [llvm-dev] [CMake] LLVM_PROGRAM_PREFIX support



   I am planning to add support to CMake so that the binaries of llvm will
have a prefix appended to it.

At this point, I am stuck on which approach to follow


1.       Append the prefix during build and install time. If so, this might
involve tweaking lit infrastructure to make sure lit picks the prefixed

2.       Append the prefix only during install time.

a.       Either create symbolic links with prefixed names to existing
binaries. On windows this might create copies bloating the install directory

b.      Or rename the existing binaries with prefixed name.


We may not need all the binaries to be prefixed . It doesn't make sense to
prefix the utils FileCheck, not, count, llvm-config etc.

I might add two CMake variables 


>LLVM_PROGRAM_PREFIX_EXCLUSION_LIST (This will specify the list of binaries
that don't need a prefix)


Let me know your thoughts 


--Sumanth G

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160720/dbe6a138/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list