[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26190: [RFC] Solve linking inconsistency, proposal two

[Mehdi AMINI via lldb-commits]

mehdi_amini added a comment.

> Does that make sense?

This makes sense (assuming static linking reduces some possibility though), but LLVM is not robust to mix and match build settings: building half of the source with -DNDEBUG and not the other is likely to cause weird runtime failures. That can be an issue because now you need libLLDB built in two modes and the client app to link the right one.

Also, exporting more than the minimum prevent an efficient LTO build of libLLDB.so

> Everything should work fine as long as you don't actually *depend* on having a separate copy of llvm (which is pretty pointless as it does not have global state (apart from the crazy cl globals)).

Is it pointless? Users have dependencies they don't control. I have seen mentioned in the past issues with "symbol pollution" from external library that was affecting LLVM users (a quick search yields https://root.cern.ch/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=22462&sid=dfd0c149390349defea19eb9ce0073c5 )


https://reviews.llvm.org/D26190