On Tue, Jan 01, 2019 at 09:45:03AM -0800, Jason Thorpe wrote: > > > > On Jan 1, 2019, at 8:02 AM, Robert Swindells <r...@fdy2.co.uk> wrote: > > > > How does the usage of libLLVM from MesaLib make use of the LLVM headers > > at *runtime* ? > > > > If they are not needed at runtime then why do they need to be installed > > on a target machine ? > > What's needed on the target machine are the LLVM libraries, and the > headers are needed to use the APIs provided by those libraries.
Nothing builds the LLVM libraries in a way that can be used for JIT. That's exactly why the headers in the current form are completely useless. Neither should they be exposed in such a way. That's exactly the reason why I am objecting. The patch as is doesn't provide any value and just wastes space in the installed system. It doesn't answer the (hard) problem of dealing with programs that need Mesa and also libclang, e.g. various graphical development tools. This is further aggrevated by the NetBSD release cycle and therefore exposing then-ancient LLVM versions. That's completely ignoring that libLLVM should not be a public library beyond the scope of Mesa or the regular problems Mesa has with keeping up with LLVM changes and therefore the now added pain of maintainance on that front. It's also ignoring the not-so-insignificant cost that the additional PIC build of the libraries has. All of this points have to be considered before any change should be just pushed into the tree during one of the main holiday seasons of the western world. Joerg