ClamAV has 3 options for handling bytecode signatures: 1. Built-in LLVM (based on LLVM 2.8) 2. Built-in bytecode interpreter 3. System-installed LLVM (support limited to LLVM 3.6 at this time, although Debian has had success with a set of patches that enabled support up to 3.9).
With 0.99 the built-in LLVM was preferred over the bytecode interpreter. With 0.100, the built-in LLVM (2.8) feature was deprecated in favor of either the interpreter or system-installed LLVM (when available). It's still there, but we are hoping to remove it in a future version. If you don't provide the older LLVM 3.6 for ClamAV, it will use it's built-interpreter rather than just-in-time-compile the signatures. Micah Snyder ClamAV Development Talos Cisco Systems, Inc. On Jul 17, 2018, at 6:05 AM, Sergey <a_...@sama.ru<mailto:a_...@sama.ru>> wrote: On Tuesday 17 July 2018, Al Varnell wrote: It's best to use the bytecode interpreter for ClamAV bytecode signatures, but if for some reason you feel you must use LLVM-JIT I thought it was necessary to use llvm to use bytecode signatures. Was I wrong? Is ClamAV not lost functionality without LLVM? -- Regards, Sergey _______________________________________________ clamav-users mailing list clamav-users@lists.clamav.net<mailto:clamav-users@lists.clamav.net> http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: https://github.com/vrtadmin/clamav-faq http://www.clamav.net/contact.html#ml
_______________________________________________ clamav-users mailing list clamav-users@lists.clamav.net http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: https://github.com/vrtadmin/clamav-faq http://www.clamav.net/contact.html#ml
