Re: Should lang/clang use lang/libLLVM?

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>]

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 06:01:05PM +0100, Tobias Nygren wrote:
> 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.

For small source files, dynamic linking overhead is a factor of 10.

Joerg