Like C++? Not afraid of quirky build systems? Seeking LLVM co-maintainers
ajax at redhat.com
Thu May 10 14:49:37 UTC 2012
On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 18:00 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> Putting that another way, if we carried eglibc in Fedora, there would be
> cries and shouts if a large number of packages started requiring it
> because we have folks that maintain GLIBC.
I don't believe this is entirely accurate, since glibc appears to be
making moves to get eglibc merged.
> I feel LLVM is a similar piece of critical technology that we should
> not need for critpath.
Honestly the biggest question I have about llvm maintenance is whether
we should allow it to self-host under clang or whether we must build it
with gcc. Upstream llvm typically self-hosts, and there are known bugs
where clang-built-llvm works but gcc-built-llvm is crashy. We should at
least make it easy to build llvm either way for comparison.
I'm happy to keep patching up llvm as I hit issues in it, of course.
It's something I'm stuck with for RHEL in the future anyway. I'm not
likely to have the resources to investigate issues that don't affect
Mesa, but as long as everybody who needs llvm can commit to that level
of self-interest we should be fine.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the devel