Am 01/06/13 17:49, schrieb David Chisnall: > On 6 Jan 2013, at 12:55, O. Hartmann wrote: > >> Having a crippled LLVM aboard AND the need having installed a port is a >> kind of none-sense. Why should I install port devel/llvm to have a >> working LLVM backend? > > The issue is the same as the issue for anything in the FreeBSD base system, > which is: what level of compatibility do we want to provide? > > In general, we aim to provide a backwards-compatible ABI across an entire > major release. This means that anything that runs on 9.0 should work on 9.1 > and so on. It should also work on 10.x with the relevant compat packages > installed. > > In contrast, LLVM changes the ABI (and API!) significantly between point > releases. We therefore don't want to encourage anything outside of the base > system to link against these libraries, because doing so would prevent us > from importing a new LLVM release every six months - we'd either need to ship > 4 copies of LLVM by an x.3 release, or stick with the one that we shipped in > x.0.
Indeed, this is a serious point and the developer of LLVM has to be blamed for that. > > There is no problem with other base-system tools linking against the base > system LLVM libraries, but in this case llvm-config does not need to be > installed (and neither do the LLVM headers), because such tools will be built > as part of the base system itself. llvm-config is simply as an example. It shows up the first when the build of POCL fails, so I have chossen it to be checked for as the relevant dependency - it was a hunch for the port Makefile I intend to provide. Since I was more focused on having POCL running for my OpenCL moveon on FreeBSD, I wasn't very careful about choosing what to check against. I will change this before I will send the port to be reviewed and revised. > > David > _______________________________________________
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
