About the name of the library``, I vote for -lllomp, i.e. lib name libllomp.a.
There is already a (perhaps unofficially named) LOMP library around (which can be used as openmp runtime for clang) and this would make some discussion hard to understand. See references to it here:
(Apologies if you see this as a replicated e-mail, I tried answering this thread from an e-mail address that the mailing list seems not to recognize)
> From: Chandler Carruth <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Date: 13 May 2015 at 12:34
> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [Openmp-dev] CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX vs -fopenmp
> and clang search library search path
> To: David Chisnall <David.Chisnall@cl.cam.ac.uk>, "Peyton, Jonathan L" <
> Cc: "email@example.com" <openmp-dev@dcs-
> maillist2.engr.illinois.edu>, cfe-dev <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> My suggestion had been 'libllomp' which would be '-lllomp'. But I
> don't really care.
> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:32 AM David Chisnall <David.Chisnall@cl.cam.ac.uk
> > wrote:
> On 13 May 2015, at 17:29, Peyton, Jonathan L <email@example.com
> > wrote:
> > What name is desirable instead of iomp? Do we want to link via…
> > -lllvmomp
> > -llvmomp
> > -lclomp
> > -lcomp
> > -lnotintelomp ( just kidding J )
> > … Some other name? I get the feeling someone outside of Intel
> should make this choice.
> [Joining in the bikeshed]
> -llomp seems most consistent (first letter of LLVM + omp, consistent
> with first letter of GNU + omp, first letter of Intel + omp).
> cfe-dev mailing list