RFC: rework llvm recipes

RFC: rework llvm recipes

[Robert Schuster]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 923 bytes --]

Hi,
LLVM does not support upward and downwards compatibility. As such I
would like to rework the llvm recipes to be installed separately.

Hence llvm is rather complicated to build I would like to drop all
version below 2.4. Is that OK?

I would also like to drop 2.4 because it is the last one that uses a
autoconf-based build system. 2.5 introduces one that is based on cmake
and which causes much less grief. :|

llvm_2.4 (if someone is against dropping) will become llvm2.4_2.4.bb
llvm_2.5 will become llvm2.5_2.5.bb. The same goes for the native variants.

For the llvm-config file I will introduce a wrapper that expects the
variable LLVM_VERSION being set and then calls llvm-config-$LLVM_VERSION.

Recipes using llvm or llvm-native should set this variable correctly.

Please post something about this proposal otherwise I will start it soon
and push it in roughly a week.

Regards
Robert


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 268 bytes --]

Re: RFC: rework llvm recipes

[Holger Schurig]

+1


Are there any users of LLVM inside OE, e.g. the D-compiler?

Have you already managed to make a cross-compiler llvm-gcc ?  In 
the llvm-mailinglist there was a thread about this recently.

Re: RFC: rework llvm recipes

[Robert Schuster]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 459 bytes --]

Hi Holger,

Holger Schurig schrieb:
> +1
Good to know. :)
> 
> Are there any users of LLVM inside OE, e.g. the D-compiler?
No idea.

> Have you already managed to make a cross-compiler llvm-gcc ?  In 
> the llvm-mailinglist there was a thread about this recently.
I am not that into llvm ... well :)

At the moment I am using it for the Shark port of OpenJDK. That is a
platform independent JIT-compiler based upon LLVM.

Regards
Robert



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 268 bytes --]