[llvm-dev] Removing LLVM testing tools from the install distribution

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[llvm-dev] Removing LLVM testing tools from the install distribution

Stefan Pusl via llvm-dev
Should the binaries included in an LLVM release be generally useful to a wide audience of toolchain users, or is it OK to ship tools that are only really useful for LLVM development?

If the former is the case, can we consider not shipping tools which are exclusively for testing the compiler? E.g removing these 5 binaries from 5.0.2-rc1 would have saved over a hundred megabytes in uncompressed space for macOS users:

Binary name | Size in megabytes
--------------------------------------------
clang-check: 54.6725
llvm-c-test: 33.8384
clang-import-test: 20.6708
c-index-test: 19.8632
verify-uselistorder: 2.84348

vedant
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] Removing LLVM testing tools from the install distribution

Stefan Pusl via llvm-dev
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Should the binaries included in an LLVM release be generally useful to a wide audience of toolchain users, or is it OK to ship tools that are only really useful for LLVM development?
>
> If the former is the case, can we consider not shipping tools which are exclusively for testing the compiler? E.g removing these 5 binaries from 5.0.2-rc1 would have saved over a hundred megabytes in uncompressed space for macOS users:
>
> Binary name | Size in megabytes
> --------------------------------------------
> clang-check: 54.6725
> llvm-c-test: 33.8384
> clang-import-test: 20.6708
> c-index-test: 19.8632
> verify-uselistorder: 2.84348
>
> vedant
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

I personally have no objections to removing the tools you just pointed
out, as long as important testing tools are kept around (in
particular, opt, llc).

Thanks,

--
Davide

"There are no solved problems; there are only problems that are more
or less solved" -- Henri Poincare
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] Removing LLVM testing tools from the install distribution

Stefan Pusl via llvm-dev
In reply to this post by Stefan Pusl via llvm-dev
Please keep llvm-symbolizer in the install distribution.

If a user's program crashes then I like to print out a backtrace with file name/line number if compiled with debug. Forking off llvm-symbolizer is the easiest way for me to obtain the debug information.

Thanks.


On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 5:27 PM, Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
Should the binaries included in an LLVM release be generally useful to a wide audience of toolchain users, or is it OK to ship tools that are only really useful for LLVM development?

If the former is the case, can we consider not shipping tools which are exclusively for testing the compiler? E.g removing these 5 binaries from 5.0.2-rc1 would have saved over a hundred megabytes in uncompressed space for macOS users:

Binary name | Size in megabytes
--------------------------------------------
clang-check: 54.6725
llvm-c-test: 33.8384
clang-import-test: 20.6708
c-index-test: 19.8632
verify-uselistorder: 2.84348

vedant
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev


_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] Removing LLVM testing tools from the install distribution

Stefan Pusl via llvm-dev
In reply to this post by Stefan Pusl via llvm-dev
A new one was just added recently - Clang's diagtool. So if you're looking at how to reduce install size, might want to double check that the motivation for adding that is consistent with/not contradictory with your goals/motivations for removing these.

(also since several of these are clang binaries/tools - maybe check with the cfe-dev list too)

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 2:27 PM Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
Should the binaries included in an LLVM release be generally useful to a wide audience of toolchain users, or is it OK to ship tools that are only really useful for LLVM development?

If the former is the case, can we consider not shipping tools which are exclusively for testing the compiler? E.g removing these 5 binaries from 5.0.2-rc1 would have saved over a hundred megabytes in uncompressed space for macOS users:

Binary name | Size in megabytes
--------------------------------------------
clang-check: 54.6725
llvm-c-test: 33.8384
clang-import-test: 20.6708
c-index-test: 19.8632
verify-uselistorder: 2.84348

vedant
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] Removing LLVM testing tools from the install distribution

Stefan Pusl via llvm-dev
On May 15, 2018, at 7:40 AM, David Blaikie <[hidden email]> wrote:

A new one was just added recently - Clang's diagtool. So if you're looking at how to reduce install size, might want to double check that the motivation for adding that is consistent with/not contradictory with your goals/motivations for removing these.

Yep, the motivation for including clang's diagtool seemed sound to me (i.e I can imagine diagtool being useful to a wide audience).

Actually, that change is what motivated me to take a closer look at what exactly makes it into our installs.


(also since several of these are clang binaries/tools - maybe check with the cfe-dev list too)

+ cfe-dev

vedant


On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 2:27 PM Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
Should the binaries included in an LLVM release be generally useful to a wide audience of toolchain users, or is it OK to ship tools that are only really useful for LLVM development?

If the former is the case, can we consider not shipping tools which are exclusively for testing the compiler? E.g removing these 5 binaries from 5.0.2-rc1 would have saved over a hundred megabytes in uncompressed space for macOS users:

Binary name | Size in megabytes
--------------------------------------------
clang-check: 54.6725
llvm-c-test: 33.8384
clang-import-test: 20.6708
c-index-test: 19.8632
verify-uselistorder: 2.84348

vedant
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev


_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] Removing LLVM testing tools from the install distribution

Stefan Pusl via llvm-dev
In reply to this post by Stefan Pusl via llvm-dev
On May 14, 2018, at 4:14 PM, David Jones <[hidden email]> wrote:

Please keep llvm-symbolizer in the install distribution.

If a user's program crashes then I like to print out a backtrace with file name/line number if compiled with debug. Forking off llvm-symbolizer is the easiest way for me to obtain the debug information.

Yep, at this point I'm only considering removing tools which are strictly for compiler testing.

vedant


Thanks.


On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 5:27 PM, Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
Should the binaries included in an LLVM release be generally useful to a wide audience of toolchain users, or is it OK to ship tools that are only really useful for LLVM development?

If the former is the case, can we consider not shipping tools which are exclusively for testing the compiler? E.g removing these 5 binaries from 5.0.2-rc1 would have saved over a hundred megabytes in uncompressed space for macOS users:

Binary name | Size in megabytes
--------------------------------------------
clang-check: 54.6725
llvm-c-test: 33.8384
clang-import-test: 20.6708
c-index-test: 19.8632
verify-uselistorder: 2.84348

vedant
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev



_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] Removing LLVM testing tools from the install distribution

Stefan Pusl via llvm-dev
In reply to this post by Stefan Pusl via llvm-dev
I'd like to argue in the other direction for the windows distribution, basic tools like llvm-symbolizer are missing there, and it would be great if it was included.

--Ray


On 5/14/2018 3:27 PM, Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev wrote:

> Should the binaries included in an LLVM release be generally useful to a wide audience of toolchain users, or is it OK to ship tools that are only really useful for LLVM development?
>
> If the former is the case, can we consider not shipping tools which are exclusively for testing the compiler? E.g removing these 5 binaries from 5.0.2-rc1 would have saved over a hundred megabytes in uncompressed space for macOS users:
>
> Binary name | Size in megabytes
> --------------------------------------------
> clang-check: 54.6725
> llvm-c-test: 33.8384
> clang-import-test: 20.6708
> c-index-test: 19.8632
> verify-uselistorder: 2.84348
>
> vedant
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev