[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/cfe-dev/attachments/20111123/6d12e6d5/attachment.html>
More information about the cfe-dev
mailing list