sabre at nondot.org
Sun Dec 12 15:45:23 PST 2004
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Reid Spencer wrote:
> I need to solicit your opinion about something.
> I'm toying with the idea of getting rid of LLVM_LIB_SEARCH_PATH. Right
> now the linkers will use this environment variable if it specifies a
> single directory. It will look in that directory to find libraries when
> things like -lc or -lcrtend are specified on the command line. Right
> now, the only known place this is useful to set to is the CFE's
> install/bytecode-libs directory. However, the configure script can make
> that path available to us already because LLVM requires configuring with
Actually, LLVM does *not* require the C frontend, but the only tools that
use the environment variable are those that are only used by the CFE.
> So, it is my understanding that current usage of
> LLVM_LIB_SEARCH_PATH is redundant with already available information
> from the configure script.
> Does anyone put anything *other* than CFE/install/bytecode-libs in their
> LLVM_LIB_SEARCH_PATH? Does anyone expect it to actually be a colon
> separated list of path names to be searched (its not interpreted that
> way currently)?
> I see two options:
> 1. Get rid of LLVM_LIB_SEARCH_PATH and just have the linker "know"
> about the bytecode-libs directory if --with-llvmgccdir was
> specified to configure.
> 2. Fully support LLVM_LIB_SEARCH_PATH as a colon separated path list
> to search for bytecode archives and files. In this case their would
> be no need to specify the bytecode-libs directory, it would be
> included already.
I definitely prefer #1. The only concern I have with it is that this
makes it impossible to move the llvmgcc install directory once it is built
(tools would not look in the correct directories).
More information about the llvm-dev