On 26.02.2015 17:21, Ken Moffat wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:20:36AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
That's true, but if you are going to build llvm, you might as well do the
optional parts at the same time. The only reason I can think of to not do
the optional parts is if you are trying to build a minimal system.
A lot of machines are small, and slow. LFS and BLFS is above all
about building a system the way you want it. For someone who is not
developing C or C++ code on the system, clang is an overhead we can
do without.
ĸen
Well, I guess we can't, as some Mesa drivers actually require it. And
that's not the fault of the book or the editors, it's just that every
other software developer thinks it's a brilliant idea to require some
additional library instead of doing their stuff with the standard stuff.
As more developers turn to clang, I guess this will only get worse. The
irony is that the clang camp always complains about all those gccisms
but now we already have a quite standard linux package that even
dynamically links a huge llvm library into their code, forcing everybody
that needs that driver to carry that library along....
/usr/lib/libLLVM-3.5.so, that's dynamically linked to the driver is 33
Megabyes big, and yes, that's after stripping the debugging symbols out
of it.
Kind regards
Tim
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
