[LLVMdev] [polly] static link

[Tobias Grosser]

On 10/07/2013 04:59 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> Tobias Grosser wrote:
>> On 09/26/2013 08:27 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote:
>>> Hi Tobi,
>>>
>>> Rick is trying to set up a public buildbot for Polly on Windows.  Right now the
>>> community version of polly does not build on Windows.  We would like to make it
>>> possible to link polly statically to avoid several problems dealing with
>>> building polly as a DLL.
>>
>> Great to hear.
>>
>>> I have a set of changes that make polly link statically in opt, clang, bugpoint,
>>> etc.  These changes drop support for building polly as a loadable lib.
>>
>> This looks extremely useful. Both for people who would like to use
>> Polly by default in their compilers and also for other approaches.
>>
>>> Do you want to keep the ability to build polly as a plugin?
>>
>> Would this be complicated? I believe having polly as a plugin is
>> nice e.g. for the automatically built debian packages as well as to
>> load it into dragonegg.
>
> Ok, so let's not remove existing functionality.  The most difficult part is
> modifying autoconf + make + LLVMBuild.txt.  What about supporting static link
> only from cmake, and then figure out how to deal with all the problems of
> configure.  This is also to first get the functionality Rick needs for the
> Windows builds: the Windows builds are cmake based.

I personally am fine with having cmake only functionality.

>>> The other question is about the place polly is located: IMO it is not a tool, it
>>> is more a lib than a tool.  Because it is by default located in llvm/tools we
>>> have to build polly before all other tools for it to be available for static
>>> link into the tools.  Do you have an opinion in maintaining polly under llvm/tools?
>>> The other place I would see polly fit is llvm/lib, I also have experimented with
>>> moving polly in llvm/lib/polly, and it simplifies a bit the makefiles in llvm/tools.
>>
>> This would require to update the automatic builders, the
>> documentation, some scripts, everybody's checkout. So it seems to
>> cause some noise. I don't have any problems if this noise simplifies
>> things significantly, but just for slightly cleaner makefiles, I
>> would prefer not to do so.

Tobias