chandlerc added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23754#580277, @mgorny wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23754#580268, @beanz wrote: > > > @mgorny, I don't think LLVMgold qualifies as a runtime in the traditional > > sense. It more closely aligns with the tools vended by LLVM even though it > > is a shared library not an executable. > > > > Runtime libraries are specifically libraries that products of clang are > > linked against (builtins, sanitizers, libcxx, libunwind...). > > > > That bit of semantics aside, I don't think there is any situation where > > LLVMgold's libdir suffix would be different from LLVM's libdir suffix. > > Since LLVMgold is built and installed as part of LLVM, there is no > > mechanism (nor do I think there should be) to cause such a differentiation. > > > > @rafael may disagree, and I will defer to his judgment if he does. My take > > is that we should just use LLVM_LIBDIR_SUFFIX for LLVMgold, and not have a > > separate variable. > > > The difference is that LLVMgold.so is not used by LLVM or clang directly but > by the system binutils, and so it must match the ABI of the linker. If you > have 32-bit libclang*, LLVM_LIBDIR_SUFFIX is 32 but ld is still a 64-bit > executable that needs 64-bit LLVMgold.so. But how does that work? The LLVM libraries linked into LLVMgold.so can't be 32-bit if it is loaded into a 64-bit binutils. https://reviews.llvm.org/D23754 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
