[JonChesterfield]

Not setting environment variables is indeed solved by not setting environment variables - but `source ./environment` is what's written on the announcement page at the top of this thread. './revng' doesn't appear anywhere on it.

You haven't set LD_LIBRARY_PATH but other people will do. Also LIBRARY_PATH, and put other stuff on PATH and so forth. Module systems are especially prone to this, but ending up with .bashrc doing it happens too.

You have granted the user the ability to override parts of the toolchain with environment variables and moving files to various different directories. That's nice. Some compiler devs will appreciate it. Also it's doing the thing Linux recommends for things installed globally so that's defensible.

In exchange, you will get bug reports saying "your product does not work", where the root cause eventually turns out to be "my linker chose a different library to my loader for some internal component". You also lose however many people try the product once, see it immediately fall over and don't take the time to tell you about the experience.

I think that's a bad trade-off. Static linking is my preferred fix, but generally anything that stops forgotten environment variables breaking your software in confusing ways is worth considering.

[aleclm]

> `source ./environment` is what's written on the announcement page at the top of this thread. './revng' doesn't appear anywhere on it.

You're right, but after that there's a link to the docs where we say to use `./revng`. The blog post is for the impatient :) On the long run the docs is what most people will look at.

I don't think we want to support use cases that might break system packages too. If you set LD_LIBRARY_PATH to a directory where you have an LLVM installation, that might break any system program using LLVM too... Why should we try to fix that using `DT_RPATH` (which is a deprecated way of doing things) when system components don't do it?

We might cleanup the environment from LD_LIBRARY_PATH and other stuff, that might be a sensible default, yeah. Also we might have some sanity check printing a warning if weird libraries are pulled in.

But it's hard to take a decision without a specific use case in mind. If you have an example, bring it forward and I'm happy to discuss what should be the right approach there.

[JonChesterfield]

LLVM picking up the wrong libraries from the environment has cost me at least a couple of months over the last decade or so. Maybe twenty instances of customers being broken, ten hours or so in meetings explaining the problem and trying to persuade people that the right thing really is different for the system compiler vs your bespoke thing.

If you think it's better for your product to find unrelated libraries with the same name at runtime, you go for it.

Detecting that failure mode would be an interesting exercise - you could crawl your own address space after startup and try to guess whether the libraries you got are the ones you wanted. Probably implementable.