On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 06:03:52PM +0100, Tim Tassonis wrote: > 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.
I was referring to clang, the optional part of llvm, not llvm itself. At the moment I have two machines with radeons (Turks and Aruba, I think), so I do build llvm - but not clang. ĸen -- Nanny Ogg usually went to bed early. After all, she was an old lady. Sometimes she went to bed as early as 6 a.m. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
