On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> LLVM upstream is (eventually) dropping their autotools build system in
> favor of their cmake buildsystem. This wouldn't normally be something
> you'd notice, but the two produce different sets of shared libraries,
>
Hi,
On 28-01-16 09:36, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 27-01-16 19:22, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 11:25 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
Aren't clang, lldb, and compiler-rt still part of the main LLVM
package sources, though? It would make sense to continue building them
as part of the
Hi,
On 27-01-16 19:22, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 11:25 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
Aren't clang, lldb, and compiler-rt still part of the main LLVM
package sources, though? It would make sense to continue building them
as part of the LLVM package since they ship together.
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> LLVM upstream is (eventually) dropping their autotools build system in
> favor of their cmake buildsystem. This wouldn't normally be something
> you'd notice, but the two produce different sets of shared libraries,
>
LLVM upstream is (eventually) dropping their autotools build system in
favor of their cmake buildsystem. This wouldn't normally be something
you'd notice, but the two produce different sets of shared libraries,
autotools gave you one big libLLVM and cmake gives you lots of
individual libraries.
On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 11:25 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> Aren't clang, lldb, and compiler-rt still part of the main LLVM
> package sources, though? It would make sense to continue building them
> as part of the LLVM package since they ship together.
They're distributed as separate tarballs, if
On Jan 27, 2016 11:26, "Neal Gompa" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > LLVM upstream is (eventually) dropping their autotools build system in
> > favor of their cmake buildsystem. This wouldn't normally be something
> > you'd