[LLVMdev] proposal to avoid zlib dependency.

[Reid Kleckner]

I also want to point out that there is prior art for bundling these types
of single-source-file utility libraries in lib/Support. We have MD5.cpp,
ConvertUTF.cpp, and reg*.c implementing various bits of functionality.
Adding a miniz.c doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 3:03 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>
wrote:

>
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 2:58 AM, Mueller-Roemer, Johannes Sebastian <
> Johannes.Sebastian.Mueller-Roemer at igd.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
>
>> There is still one reason this should NOT be done:
>>
>>
>>
>> If some other library which uses LLVM wants to use zlib (either the
>> system version or one built by hand) we will have linker issues with
>> multiple definition, as LLVM only works with static libraries on Windows.
>> Unless LLVM uses a custom prefix for its internal ZLib, which would “only”
>> lead to more binary bloat.
>>
>
> If we do this at all, we would clearly have to use an LLVM-specific name
> for any functions / routines / etc.
>
> While this might be extraneous space in the binary, compared to even the
> smallest part of LLVM, I suspect it would be lost in the noise.
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140918/dc200a7c/attachment.html>