[cfe-dev] Clang 3.5 Release Pre-Pre-Pre-Announcement

[Reid Kleckner]

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote:

>
> On 16/05/2014 21:20, Richard wrote:
>
>> In article <4FBFE344-19A4-4A9A-9C93-AB9A4554D6CE at gmail.com>,
>>      Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>  Have you been sleeping poorly worried about the Clang 3.5 release? Well,
>>> this may help! The plan right now is to start testing in July with August
>>> as the target release month. There isn't a schedule yet, of course. But
>>> it
>>> should be a goodly amount of time for all y'all to prepare for the
>>> release
>>> process.
>>>
>>> If you have any questions, please let me know. If you'd like to volunteer
>>> to be a tester, also let me know. :-)
>>>
>> I have some packaging changes I'd like to see in place for the 3.5
>> packaging.  The changes include some more utilities in the package for
>> refactoring tool developers and there is an issue with the way the
>> Windows packages are being built that causes them to omit many of the
>> things in the unix packages.  Again, this is to make it easier to
>> write refactoring tools.
>>
>
> So far the idea with the Windows installer has been to provide a toolchain
> rather than a complete SDK, but it'd be nice to see if we can head in that
> direction, perhaps with a separate SDK package.
>
> CC'ing in Hans who has opinions on this.
>
> Which files did you want to include specifically?


Initially I didn't want to do this because it bloats the installation.  The
package itself is compressed, so a lot of the code duplication is mitigated.

Normally people solve this with shared libraries, and I assumed that's what
we did on Linux, where we have a shared library build.  Turns out I was
wrong, our pre-built binaries are totally static.  So maybe this doesn't
matter as much as I thought it did.

Relatedly, I think at some point we should add LLVM_EXPORT annotations to
APIs in Support/ADT, IR, Target, etc, so that we can reduce our .dynsym
count and actually support an LLVM.dll on Windows.  However, I know there
is *strong* resistance in some camps due to the burden this would impose.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20140516/dee92167/attachment.html>