chandlerc added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D26244#641076, @Hahnfeld wrote:
> This change doesn't break existing tests but maybe I should extend
> `linux-ld.c` and so on?
>
> About the impact: Which libraries are there next to clang that could conflict
> with the system? When I look at my current installation dir:
>
> - `libLLVM*`, `libclang*`, `liblld*` libraries which should be fine to use
> - `libc++`, `libc++experimental`, `libc++abi` and `libunwind` which we really
> want to use IMO
> - OpenMP runtime(s) which are fine to use (or even better than the system
> default)
> - I'm not sure about `libLTO` but I *think* that users do not link to this
> library directly?
Those are just the libriaries LLVM is installing.
If it is installed into a prefix, say, /opt/mumble/{bin,lib,...} along with
other libraries, then suddenly that directory is searched in a very different
place.
I'm not arguing one way or the other here. I'm pointing out that this is a
*huge* change to make. It will cause a large number of users to silently have a
different library search path than they have had before, something that has
been fairly stable for several years. So whatever we do must be considered very
carefully.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D26244
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
