On 03/03/2017 12:23 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Martin Kelly <mke...@xevo.com> wrote:
On 03/03/2017 12:12 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
with meta-clang there is no desire to support multiple versions of
llvm and thats why versioning was dropped however, I would still like
to fix the versioning if that makes it more useful.
OK, keeping a single version is certainly simpler. Could you clarify "I
would still like to fix the versioning if that makes it more useful." ?
say if there are other apps which depend on the versioning and
otherwise would need patching to work with llvm from meta-clang, then
lets fix it in meta-clang.
From my investigation, it looks like the real (unwrapped) llvm-config
is in the PATH for any recipe depending on clang-native. This means that
when an app looks for llvm-config, it will find the real version and
won't know that the wrapper went anywhere. Of course, if the app truly
depends on a specific LLVM version -- due to LLVM's unstable ABI -- then
that app will break when the meta-clang version changes. However, if we
don't maintain multiple versions of LLVM in meta-clang, that's unavoidable.
So AFAICT we could safely remove the wrapper and have apps that set
WANT_LLVM_RELEASE still work correctly, if they compile against our
version of meta-clang. Since it appears the wrapper has been broken for
for some time anyway, I'm guessing there aren't many such apps anyway.
Does that sound reasonable to you?
--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
