On 22.04.2015 21:11, Pekka Jääskeläinen wrote: > 22.4.2015, 17:21, Tiago Gehring kirjoitti: >> Thanks Pekka. I think that I will not give up on my idea of a fully >> contained pocl library (i.e. all static LLVM and libclang) after all >> then (or at least leave it as an alternative). How difficult do you >> think would it be to replace the clang binary calls by library ones? > > I haven't checked what type of APIs are available for the binary > linking, maybe Kalle has the best idea?
We actually use the clang binary only to drive the system linker binary - commonly the GNU linker. This is because clang has built-in all the details on how to drive other system linkers (i.e. the ones on OSX, Windows). There is the LLVM linker project http://lld.llvm.org/ which would offer the needed linking API & library similar to what libclang.a and libLLVM*.a do. I looked into lld quite a while ago. At that time I got stuck at lld being only cmake-compilable (IIRC) wtih pocl could be compiled only against the shared LLVM library at the time, so I never looked any more closely at it. Now pocl can compile against a cmake-built LLVM, so there is more hope. But I don't think anyone has worked on this approach. Who knows, it might not be that difficult in the end? A patch to use LLD would be very welcome :) kalle ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_ source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF _______________________________________________ pocl-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pocl-devel
