[llvm-dev] [RFC] LLVM Busybox Proposal
Ben Craig via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Jun 23 06:28:20 PDT 2021
I agree that the official installation case probably isn't an issue.
There are unofficial installation cases that are more annoying. I wouldn't be able to just zip up my llvm dir and hand it to someone else to unzip like I can today.
The just-built case is a bigger deal. I do most of my development on Windows from a standard account (non-admin, non-developer). That's largely by choice, but some IT departments are much more picky. If I need to install something, then I open a distinct admin command prompt.
Requiring development mode to be turned on for LLVM dev is similar to requiring Linux devs to build as root (or at least making a few new programs setuid root).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of David
> Chisnall via llvm-dev
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 3:36 AM
> To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] LLVM Busybox Proposal
> On 21/06/2021 22:18, Ben Craig via llvm-dev wrote:
> > Do you have a plan for Windows? Sym links on Windows are mostly
> > limited to administrators and developer mode.
> Is that a problem? Installers generally run with administrator rights (choco,
> for example, requires running from an Administrator PowerShell and that's
> how most folks I know install LLVM on Windows).
> Developers generally need to enable developer mode if they want to run
> things that they've built (and doing so is a single toggle switch in Settings, so
> it's not a massive obstacle). It should be fairly easy to try running mklink
> during CMake if this option is enabled and, if it fails, error out and tell the
> person running the build to either enable developer mode or switch to
> separate-program builds.
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
More information about the llvm-dev