xdp-tools still has a regular clang dependency and really should use llvm-r1.eclass for consistency with other ebuilds. Reproducible: Always
Already fixed in my overlay, just waiting for the next bump since it's not critical.
llvm-r1 is intended for packages linking with libclang/llvm and such, when just calling clang itself in PATH then BDEPEND should be all you need (otherwise we'd have an eclass to use gcc too).
(In reply to Ionen Wolkens from comment #2) > llvm-r1 is intended for packages linking with libclang/llvm and such, when > just calling clang itself in PATH then BDEPEND should be all you need > (otherwise we'd have an eclass to use gcc too). Or is this package actually linking with clang libraries? (haven't looked, but assumed not given it's only in BDEPEND).
(In reply to Ionen Wolkens from comment #3) > (In reply to Ionen Wolkens from comment #2) > > llvm-r1 is intended for packages linking with libclang/llvm and such, when > > just calling clang itself in PATH then BDEPEND should be all you need > > (otherwise we'd have an eclass to use gcc too). OK, that makes sense. > Or is this package actually linking with clang libraries? (haven't looked, > but assumed not given it's only in BDEPEND). Just had to check myself, and no - it just links against libbpf, clang/llc is used for compiling bpf programs which are then linked into libxdp or the various utilities. I could have sworn someone asked me to do this, but apprently not. All the better!
(In reply to Holger Hoffstätte from comment #4) > Just had to check myself, and no - it just links against libbpf, clang/llc > is used for compiling bpf programs which are then linked into libxdp or the > various utilities. More correctly the bpf bits are installed separately and then loaded with libbpf. Still no clang/llvm dep though.
(In reply to Holger Hoffstätte from comment #4) > (In reply to Ionen Wolkens from comment #3) > > (In reply to Ionen Wolkens from comment #2) > > > llvm-r1 is intended for packages linking with libclang/llvm and such, when > > > just calling clang itself in PATH then BDEPEND should be all you need > > > (otherwise we'd have an eclass to use gcc too). > > OK, that makes sense. > > > Or is this package actually linking with clang libraries? (haven't looked, > > but assumed not given it's only in BDEPEND). > > Just had to check myself, and no - it just links against libbpf, clang/llc > is used for compiling bpf programs which are then linked into libxdp or the > various utilities. > > I could have sworn someone asked me to do this, but apprently not. > All the better! I'm assuming this needs LLVM_TARGETS="BPF" and *if* someone did ask, maybe it's because it doesn't check for it -- albeit that's a long shot given the LLVM_TARGET is forced (maybe if they were unforcing them and hit a failure, just a guess ;p). ...but that's a case similar to checking for openmp support and llvm-r1 doesn't really fits still (aka it doesn't need to "pin" to llvm slots), for a best effor it should probably depend on llvm-core/clang:*[llvm_targets_BPF] like e.g. libv4l[bpf] though.
(In reply to Ionen Wolkens from comment #6) > for a best effor it should probably depend on > llvm-core/clang:*[llvm_targets_BPF] like e.g. libv4l[bpf] though. I believe that was what I was actually trying to do, which makes even more sense. :) Noted and will do for the next bump. Thanks!
