On 26/11/2017 23:47, Alexander Kurtz wrote: > Hi! > > On Sun, 2017-11-26 at 22:27 +0100, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: >> For now, I am not planning to add this a mandatory dep. openmp is a >> niche and I don't think >> we should have a hard dependency for every clang user. >> By the way libomp-dev is suggested by clang packages. > In theory, you are right, clang should not depend on library packages > just for convenience. However libomp-dev is special here, because its > usage is usually hidden: Typical OpenMP tutorials look like this: > > cc -fopenmp foo.c > > or maybe > > cc -fopenmp -o foo.o foo.c > cc -fopenmp -o foo foo.o > > and this works on GCC. The fact that this doesn't work with clang isn't > even the problem here, the fact that step 1 from above works, while > step 2 doesn't is. If users expected to need to link a library in for > this to work, things would be fine, but they don't (which arguably is > the real problem here, but thanks to GCC that's just the way it is). > > TL;DR: If you want to write cross-compiler Makefiles, you use > -fopenmp for both compiling and linking, because the actual OpenMP > libraries differ between GCC and clang. And this breaks for clang. > > And last but not least, libomp-dev pulls in 238 KB, which is about 0.4% > of the 59.1 MB clang pulls in: Well, this won't be true in a future upload. I split clang & clang-tools; clang should be about 9mb now. > If you don't want a hard dependency (which I still think would be the > correct thing to do since "a command line argument of clang doesn't > actually work without it"), would you perhaps consider a Recommends: ? > Sure, I fixed that in the vcs!
Thanks S
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
