Re: Reducing LLVM closure size

[Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2483 bytes --]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:27:45AM +0200, Pierre Neidhardt wrote:
> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> - either move the libs to a "lib" output,
> >> - or move the "bin" and "include" folder to a new output.
> >>
> >> The second approach has the benefit of being less disruptive for dependents.
> >
> > I have a slight preference for a “lib” output since that’s more in line
> > with what we do for other packages.
> 
> OK.
> 

I see the include directory is about 20MB, can that be left in "out" or
is that needed in the "lib" output?

> > Nice!  I looked for something like this when I packaged
> > ‘clang-tools-extra’ and didn’t find it.  This should go into the next
> > ‘staging’ branch (or ‘core-updates’?).
> 
> I can send a patch for llvm-10, but I guess many llvm-dependents will
> have to be updated accordingly.
> 
> I suppose that the input
> 
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> ("llvm" ,llvm)
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
> 
> will need to be turned to
> 
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> ("llvm" ,llvm "lib")
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
> 
> for most packages.  I have no experience with LLVM, so can someone
> confirm that this is the right way to go?
> 
> >> All in all, it looks like we can save 52 MiB out of 140 MiB from the LLVM
> >> package (and 210 MiB from its closure).
> >
> > That’d be great.
> 
> To clarify the ambiguous sentence I wrote above, we would save 52 MiB
> from the closure size of LLVM.
> 
> > An additional option would be to have a package with fewer backends by
> > default (currently all of them are enabled and that takes up quite some
> > space).  In particular, Mesa doesn’t depend to depend on an LLVM variant
> > with 15 backends when it’s only going to use one.
> 
> Are you suggesting an alternative or a tweak to add on top of my
> suggestion?
> 
> Where would we store the different backends?  In different outputs?
> On which backend does Mesa depend for instance?

I would assume llvmpipe

> 
> Cheers!
> 
> -- 
> Pierre Neidhardt
> https://ambrevar.xyz/



-- 
Efraim Flashner   <efraim@flashner.co.il>   אפרים פלשנר
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]