Windows binaries and LLVM_INSTALL_TOOLCHAIN_ONLY

This is mostly to Hans since he builds these AIUI, but would be worth
getting others' opinions too. I'd like to ask whether building the Windows
binaries *without* LLVM_INSTALL_TOOLCHAIN_ONLY could be considered and
tried. Would the result be a prohibitive amount larger than the current
installer? LLVM is an incredibly useful set of libraries and has many use
cases, including on Windows, beyond just a clang.exe add-in for Visual
Studio.

For those of us downstream users who consume LLVM as a library and aren't
doing development on LLVM itself every day, having libraries and headers
ready to go from a binary download would save a few hours of getting-up-
and-running time.

Thanks,
Tony

Hi Tony,

This is mostly to Hans since he builds these AIUI, but would be worth
getting others' opinions too. I'd like to ask whether building the Windows
binaries *without* LLVM_INSTALL_TOOLCHAIN_ONLY could be considered and
tried. Would the result be a prohibitive amount larger than the current
installer? LLVM is an incredibly useful set of libraries and has many use
cases, including on Windows, beyond just a clang.exe add-in for Visual
Studio.

For those of us downstream users who consume LLVM as a library and aren't
doing development on LLVM itself every day, having libraries and headers
ready to go from a binary download would save a few hours of getting-up-
and-running time.

This comes up now and then.

Yes, the packages would be a lot bigger, but IIRC the problem is also
that we don't have a good way to build to build LLVM into a shared
library on Windows that's suitable for shipping. I don't remember the
details here; maybe Reid does.

Thanks,
Hans

Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev <llvm-dev <at> lists.llvm.org> writes:

This comes up now and then.

Yes, the packages would be a lot bigger, but IIRC the problem is also
that we don't have a good way to build to build LLVM into a shared
library on Windows that's suitable for shipping. I don't remember the
details here; maybe Reid does.

Some of the other platforms' binaries look like they also ship static
libraries, and that would be more useful than no libraries at all IMO.

I believe the issue with the dll build is marking symbols for dllexport.

-Tony

Tony Kelman via llvm-dev <llvm-dev <at> lists.llvm.org> writes:

Some of the other platforms' binaries look like they also ship static
libraries, and that would be more useful than no libraries at all IMO.

Should I take the silence here as a "no" on static libraries then?

It seems me and Reid fell off the cc list, but yes - I'm not going to
look into shipping libraries at the moment.

- Hans

Hi,