[cfe-dev] clang packaging question

[Eli Friedman]

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:05 AM, Michel Alexandre
Salim<michael.silvanus at gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. Noting that clang and clang-cc can currently operate without LLVM
> installed, would it be better to have the llvm-clang package depend on
> llvm or not?

If you're distributing the gold plugin, it would be nice to have once
it works (see below); otherwise, I don't see any need to drag in the
other LLVM tools unless the user requests them, at least for the
moment.

> 2. The clang binary's emit-llvm mode currently only works if -S is
> also supplied; would it eventually automatically invoke the
> appropriate LLVM tools (as per the clang-cc examples)? In which case,
> the answer to (1) is obvious.

In theory, it should work with the gold plugin
(http://llvm.org/docs/GoldPlugin.html), although I don't think clang
actually passes the right options to the linker at the moment.  There
have been discussions of other modes, but nothing definite.

> 3. Does the Clang team have any preference w.r.t. package naming? e.g.
>  -- llvm-clang or just clang
>  -- llvm-clang-analyzer, clang-analyzer, or llvm-checker

I don't have any opinion here.


Are you planning to base the release off of LLVM 2.6?  If not, note
that you should uncomment the USE_PRODUCTION_CLANG define in
clang/lib/Driver/Driver.cpp.

-Eli