[make install] Shouldn't install utils, examples or projects/sample

[lattner]

Bugzilla Link	728
Resolution	FIXED
Resolved on	Feb 22, 2010 12:54
Version	1.6
OS	All

Extended Description

It would be nice if make install (or make install-something-else) only installed the LLVM libraries and
tools, not llvm/utils, llvm/examples and llvm/projects.

The utils is only used when building LLVM (not by clients who use the llvm headers/libraries), the others
are only used by developers not by people looking to link to llvm libraries and use tools.

-Chris

[lattner]

assigned to @lattner

[llvmbot]

So, how about "make full-install" to get everything and default "make install"
to just tools/libs/headers/runtime ?

[lattner]

For the record, "make full-install" and "make install" sound great :)

[llvmbot]

Okay, one question on this:

When you say you don't want the "utils" installed with "make install", then I'm
assuming that doesn't apply to things like burg, tblgen and fpcmp. Wouldn't a
developer need those if he's building a back end or running llvm-test?

[lattner]

llvm-test isn't run with an installed tree, so that's not an issue (it uses fpcmp).
burg is SparcV9 only, so it's not either.

tblgen is used by targets outside the tree, if they could possible exist. I don't think it works and I'm
not aware of anyone doing this though.

At least at apple, people don't use 'make install'ed trees to do development of LLVM libraries (e.g. code
generators). Instead, they use 'make install'd trees when they want to consider a distro of LLVM as a
given that they link into their app, using the libraries. F.E. Morton with his JIT raytracer thing wants to
link the codegen and other libraries into his app, but isn't doing llvm development per-say with it. For
this sort of use, you definitely do not need tblgen.

Do you really see any reason people would be compelled to build a target out of tree? Building a target
still often requires extensions to the code generator libraries and other things, so I can't see this as
being something possible, even if the makefile machinery supported it.

-Chris

[llvmbot]

I'm not attached to the outcome. I was just asking a question. I had no idea how
these things are used. Now that you've explained, I understand. So, I will avoid
the utils directory for the install target. All you'll get are libs and tools.

[lattner]

ok, sounds good. Don't forget includes :)

Thanks Reid!

-Chris

[llvmbot]

This is turning into quite a bit of work and so I'm going to combine it with
some work I've been doing on reorganizing the makefile system. The basic change
to the makefiles will be:

1. putting all the Make.* files into a new llvm/make directory
2. creating a Make.* file for each type of thing built. e.g. Make.lib, Make.tool
   each of which will be some dissection of the current Makefile.rules file.
3. using the gmake "include" feature to specify the type of thing to be built
   rather than using lots of variables specify what should be done.

Consequently, this bug won't get resolved until (probably) after 1.7 is shipped.
The new makefile system (heavily influenced by current system) will appear in
LLVM 1.8.

[lattner]

Sounds great. I like that design.

Thanks,

-Chris

[lattner]

This isn't slated for 1.7

[lattner]

Implemented, patches here:
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20060529/035368.html
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20060529/035370.html

-Chris