Hahnfeld marked an inline comment as done. Hahnfeld added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30733#697108, @jroelofs wrote:
> As I said on https://reviews.llvm.org/D30214, it is inappropriate to be > installing libc++ in the resource directory... please **do not** do that. Can you give reason for that? I can understand that header files are independent of the target architecture but how do you handle multiple binary libraries for let's say 32 and 64 bit? This was the main motivation for the OpenMP runtime in http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/openmp-dev/2016-December/001612.html, please also see https://bugs.llvm.org//show_bug.cgi?id=31300. I don't think `libc++` would be any different here. Additionally, my main motiviation was for `libunwind` as explained here: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2017-January/052512.html On that thread multiple people suggested to use an extra directory for runtime libraries, @rnk and @mgorny listed as reviewers for this patch. If `libunwind` goes there and is added together with `libc++`, we need to add the rpath here. And what's the reason against installing `libc++` in the same path then? ================ Comment at: lib/Driver/ToolChain.cpp:652 + // libc++ may be installed per arch. + addArchSpecificRPath(*this, Args, CmdArgs); break; ---------------- pirama wrote: > `addArchSpecificRPath` is a static function in Tools.cpp and isn't visible > here. No, it's not since recent refactoring. I do compile test my changes usually ;-) https://reviews.llvm.org/D30733 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
