On 6 Jan 2013, at 20:38, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
> You can't seriously blame LLVM for making progress. If ports rely on a
> specific version of LLVM, it would be far better to create devel/llvm31,
> devel/llvm32 etc.
Well, I can (and, even with my LLVM committer hat on, do) blame LLVM for not
On 2013-01-06 21:38, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
Den 06/01/2013 kl. 18.25 skrev "O. Hartmann" :
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 doin
Den 06/01/2013 kl. 18.25 skrev "O. Hartmann" :
>> 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 importi
On 6 Jan 2013 14:57, "Dimitry Andric" wrote:
>
> On 2013-01-06 15:16, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
> ...
>
>> I think the real problem is that LLVM and the related tools are build in
one go, so you can't easily build llvm-config and others for the base
version of LLVM.
>
>
> Well, it would be easy enou
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 iss
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:
Am 01/06/13 15:52, schrieb Dimitry Andric:
> On 2013-01-06 13:55, O. Hartmann wrote:
>> While working with an OpenCL port that is depending on LLVM 3.2, I feel
>> very uncomfortable haveng to have devel/llvm-devel installed while the
>> official release of LLVM is 3.2.
>
> Please prod the port mai
Am 01/06/13 15:57, schrieb Dimitry Andric:
> On 2013-01-06 15:16, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
> ...
>> I think the real problem is that LLVM and the related tools are build
>> in one go, so you can't easily build llvm-config and others for the
>> base version of LLVM.
>
> Well, it would be easy enough
Am 01/06/13 15:52, schrieb Dimitry Andric:
> On 2013-01-06 13:55, O. Hartmann wrote:
>> While working with an OpenCL port that is depending on LLVM 3.2, I feel
>> very uncomfortable haveng to have devel/llvm-devel installed while the
>> official release of LLVM is 3.2.
>
> Please prod the port mai
On 2013-01-06 15:16, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
...
I think the real problem is that LLVM and the related tools are build in one
go, so you can't easily build llvm-config and others for the base version of
LLVM.
Well, it would be easy enough to build llvm-config, but what should its
output be?
On 2013-01-06 13:55, O. Hartmann wrote:
While working with an OpenCL port that is depending on LLVM 3.2, I feel
very uncomfortable haveng to have devel/llvm-devel installed while the
official release of LLVM is 3.2.
Please prod the port maintainer (Brooks) to update the llvm port
instead. I ha
Den 06/01/2013 kl. 13.55 skrev O. Hartmann :
> While FreeBSD's
> base system already has LLVM/CLANG, it is missing some important LLVM
> pieces, like llvm-config and others.
llvm-config is a build dependency that spits out some lib paths that you can
just hard-code for FreeBSD. So what in "other
While working with an OpenCL port that is depending on LLVM 3.2, I feel
very uncomfortable haveng to have devel/llvm-devel installed while the
official release of LLVM is 3.2. The port devel/llvm is still the older
3.1. Is this going to be changed? I guess it must be synchronized with
FreeBSD 9.X's
13 matches
Mail list logo
