Proposal: Improving the LLVM backend by packaging it

Joachim Breitner mail at
Sat Nov 1 16:47:47 UTC 2014


Am Samstag, den 01.11.2014, 11:26 -0500 schrieb Austin Seipp:
> > How long does building those two llvm binaries take? If it is
> > sufficiently quick, maybe that would be a suitable distribution for
> > developers as well, and avoids having to separately build, distribute,
> > download, and install the binaries.
> In practice it takes a while... I haven't timed it, but I'd guess on
> average it adds about 30-40 minutes for most people just to build
> llvm. I'm not sure how many things we can disable to make the build
> faster, but I'd ballpark it at half an hour at best (it's a few
> thousand source files, after all).
> This would mostly hurt if you cleaned up the tree later (e.g. 'make
> distclean'), which I do rather frequently in order to get a pristine
> build tree.

yes, me too. Which means that we’d have to go through the trouble of
distributing binaries...

But then: Do GHC developers actually need the LLVM binaries (unless they
want to test the llvm backend, of course)?


Joachim “nomeata” Breitner
  mail at joachim-breitner.de
  Jabber: nomeata at  • GPG-Key: 0xF0FBF51F
  Debian Developer: nomeata at

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <>

More information about the ghc-devs mailing list