Add support to dynamic LLVM libraries

[Daniel-Boll]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

Yes, the current version of the LLVM crate does not support dynamic LLVM libraries, which limits its usability in certain scenarios. This can be frustrating for users who need to work with dynamically loaded libraries.

Describe the solution you'd like

The solution would be to add support for dynamic LLVM libraries in the LLVM crate, as has been done in the llvm-sys crate with this MR: https://gitlab.com/taricorp/llvm-sys.rs/-/merge_requests/31. This would allow users to work with dynamically loaded libraries and improve the crate's overall usability.

Describe possible drawbacks to your solution

One possible drawback is that adding support for dynamic LLVM libraries could increase the size of the crate and potentially impact its performance. Additionally, it could introduce compatibility issues with certain systems or configurations.

Describe alternatives you've considered

One alternative solution could be for users to manually modify the LLVM crate to add support for dynamic libraries, but this would require significant effort and knowledge of the crate's internals. Another alternative could be to use a different crate or library that already supports dynamic LLVM libraries.

Additional context

None.

[yorickpeterse]

Per https://gitlab.com/taricorp/llvm-sys.rs/-/issues/48, new versions of llvm-sys are released that include support for dynamic linking. Adding support for this should be a matter of adding the necessary features to propagate. Until a new release of Inkwell is available, you can add the following to your Cargo.toml:

# If using LLVM 15:
llvm-sys-150 = { package = "llvm-sys", version = "150.1.0", features = ["prefer-static"] }

[Daniel-Boll]

Oh, I see, thank you for your reply @yorickpeterse.

[yorickpeterse]

@Daniel-Boll I think this issue should stay open, as Inkwell itself doesn't yet take care of passing down the necessary features 😃

[Pat-Lafon]

I think this has been fixed in #428?