[lldb-dev] CMake & BUILD_SHARED_LIBS

[Andrew Wilkins]

On Mon, 1 Jun 2015 at 22:03 Vince Harron <vince at nethacker.com> wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
>
> Thanks for the patch and thanks for your patience.  The release is in 4-6
> weeks but there are a lot of people on the team, someone will probably have
> a chance to look sooner.
>
> Is there a deadline you are working against?
>
No particular deadline. My ultimate goal is to get llgo (Go frontend for
LLVM) packaged in Debian and Ubuntu. llgo only has CMake, and I don't want
to maintain both CMake and autotools. Packaging is meant to be moving to
CMake anyway, so I'm seeing what I can do to help move that forward. I'd
like to have the LLVM changes done by the 3.7 release if possible.

Cheers,
Andrew

> Vince
>  On Jun 1, 2015 1:16 AM, "Andrew Wilkins" <axwalk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 1 Jun 2015 at 16:01 Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre at debian.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Le 01/06/2015 09:55, Andrew Wilkins a écrit :
>>>
>>>  On Mon, 1 Jun 2015 at 11:06 Vince Harron < <vince at nethacker.com>
>>> vince at nethacker.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>>
>>>>  We're not testing that configuration so I'm not surprised that you're
>>>> hitting problems.  I'd like to look into it but we're working towards a
>>>> release now and this isn't the most critical issue.  For today, I recommend
>>>> building without this flag.
>>>>
>>>
>>>  No worries. When would be a good time to ping back? I was hoping to
>>> get the packaging updated for 3.7, but that may be too aggressive, and not
>>> leave enough time for bug fixing.
>>>
>>>  Also, in case I wasn't clear: I have changes ready, I just thought it
>>> might be polite to bring it up here first, since I've not contributed
>>> before. Building without the flag isn't really an option for Debian
>>> packaging. The autotools-based build already links LLDB libs against
>>> libLLVM.so, and it would be best to preserve that.
>>>
>>>   Yep, I confirm that it is needed to move the Debian & Ubuntu packages
>>> from autotools to cmake.
>>> For now, I have an important number of undefined symbols.
>>> Could you send your patch? I would be happy to test that.
>>>
>>
>> Sure, I've just uploaded it to Phabricator:
>> http://reviews.llvm.org/D10157.
>>
>> Vince, please feel free to ignore that one for now, as you're busy. I
>> don't want to disrupt anyone's work.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Andrew
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20150602/670dd211/attachment.html>