Re: Should lang/clang use lang/libLLVM?

[Tobias Nygren <tnn%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:46:55 +0100
Benny Siegert <bsiegert%gmail.com@localhost> wrote:

> I noticed that there is a large amount of files that are duplicated
> between the clang and libLLVM packages, albeit with slightly different
> paths (e.g. include vs. include/libLLVM).
> 
> Is there a reason for this duplication? I would love to see clang
> depend on libLLVM, so that you can have both and not rebuild the world
> twice.

I was told by someone (on IRC?) that the statically linked compiler is
quite a bit faster, but can't remember who and have no numbers to back
up this assertion. Someone should benchmark this.

The frontend aside, we do need to keep the backend libs as separate
packages so multiple versions can peacefully coexist, due to the
evolving API.

Kind regards,
-Tobias