<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><span></span></div><div><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div>Once LLVM is built and used as a dylib, we'd just mark the zlib symbols as hidden. :-)</div><div><br></div><div>I tend to think that bundling is ugly because it makes it harder for a distributor or integrator to pick the exact versions of all of the components in the system. I don't know if this was mentioned already, but maybe we can have a compromise where a configure option can be used to select between the system zlib and whatever LLVM bundles. The default can be system zlib with an automatic fallback of using the bundled zlib (or zlib equivelant). </div><div><br>-Filip</div><div><br>On Sep 18, 2014, at 3:03 AM, Chandler Carruth <<a href="mailto:chandlerc@google.com">chandlerc@google.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 2:58 AM, Mueller-Roemer, Johannes Sebastian <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Johannes.Sebastian.Mueller-Roemer@igd.fraunhofer.de" target="_blank">Johannes.Sebastian.Mueller-Roemer@igd.fraunhofer.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">There is still one reason this should NOT be done:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">If some other library which uses LLVM wants to use zlib (either the system version or one built by hand) we will have linker issues with multiple
definition, as LLVM only works with static libraries on Windows. Unless LLVM uses a custom prefix for its internal ZLib, which would “only” lead to more binary bloat.</span></p></blockquote></div><br>If we do this at all, we would clearly have to use an LLVM-specific name for any functions / routines / etc.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">While this might be extraneous space in the binary, compared to even the smallest part of LLVM, I suspect it would be lost in the noise.</div></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>LLVM Developers mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu">LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu</a> <a href="http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu">http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu</a></span><br><span><a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev</a></span><br></div></blockquote></div></body></html>