clang parser: can libclang be loaded dynamically?

Kevin Funk kfunk at
Mon Apr 11 14:03:57 UTC 2016

On Monday, April 11, 2016 3:29:11 PM CEST René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> (snip)

Sorry, but I cannot help myself wasting time discussing solved problems / 
problems where there are no problems. Thus the 'snip'. Please have a look how 
well-established distributions (Debian/Ubuntu/whatever) handle package 
upgrades / package splitting / avoiding dependency hell / etc. pp..

I don't think we need to discuss it here (at least I don't have the time/
motivation to do so, sorry).

> >developer work flow. Just compile/install/use Clang+LLVM as every Windows/
> >Linux developer is doing as well. Be done.
> I'd like to see what you are basing that statement on. I strongly doubt that
> MSWin developers are jumping through the hoops of building clang+llvm from
> source en masse if they can simply grab a binary installer from,
> run that, and be off doing their actual job.

Please read [1] (or similar takes on that topic), then you understand why it 
is "not that easy". It's common on Windows to compile *everything* from 
source, since binaries produced by different VS versions are not interopable. 
Different topic with MinGW, yes. It has its own set of problems.

> Linux devs and users are a
> strange bunch who've always seemed inclined to spend almost more time
> updating their tools (and trying out new distributions) rather than doing
> actual work with them. 

Interesting you're saying that. I'm exactly not that kind of person. I use 
binary packages where possible, source packages where necessary. Principle of 
least effort. I'm also that kind of person who'd rather like to see many of 
"fringe group" distributions die, and ask people to better contribute their 
time to well-established ones by helping out with packaging, etc.

That's just my opinion, though. And we're getting OT (again).


> But I'd like to hope that's just an impression and
> that there too, it's only a minority who roll their own for have a good
> reason. How many people actually use clang as the main compiler on Linux?
> I've given up on that, too bad if it's a tad faster.
> R.


Kevin Funk | kfunk at |
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <>

More information about the KDevelop-devel mailing list