Alexey Samsonov
2014-Feb-12 14:12 UTC
[LLVMdev] Heads-up: changing the structure of compiler-rt source tree
Hi David, On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 5:22 PM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:> On 12 Feb 2014, at 13:21, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:56 PM, David Chisnall < > David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > >> Are you going to move the unwind library there as part of the > reorganisation? > > > > No. > > Given that the consensus appeared to be that this is where it belongs... > why not? It seems strange to do a big reorganisation pass, but not do all > of it.To be honest, I haven't worked with the unwind library. I'm fine with moving it to compiler-rt, but this should probably be done by someone with a sufficient knowledge of the library and/or its use cases. I'd be glad to provide any help, though. -- Alexey Samsonov, MSK -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140212/e339128e/attachment.html>
Vadim Chugunov
2014-Feb-12 21:06 UTC
[LLVMdev] Heads-up: changing the structure of compiler-rt source tree
As it happens, I've already started massaging libunwind to make it a part of compiler-rt. At the moment, I am shooting for the makefile build. Once that's done, I could use somebody's help to add it to cmake build system. It would be nice if somebody could look into disentangling compiler-rt from clang. I think that at the least it should be build-able together with LLVM (i.e. by checking it out into llvm/projects) without clang involvement. Completely standalone builds would be a plus, if feasible. Last but not the least: I still haven't heard anybody admitting to being a maintainer of compiler-rt :-) Somebody will need to review the patch and check it in... Vadim On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 6:12 AM, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com>wrote:> Hi David, > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 5:22 PM, David Chisnall < > David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > >> On 12 Feb 2014, at 13:21, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com> wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:56 PM, David Chisnall < >> David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: >> >> Are you going to move the unwind library there as part of the >> reorganisation? >> > >> > No. >> >> Given that the consensus appeared to be that this is where it belongs... >> why not? It seems strange to do a big reorganisation pass, but not do all >> of it. > > > To be honest, I haven't worked with the unwind library. I'm fine with > moving it to compiler-rt, but this should probably be done by someone with > a sufficient > knowledge of the library and/or its use cases. I'd be glad to provide any > help, though. > > -- > Alexey Samsonov, MSK > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140212/5514b807/attachment.html>
Jim Grosbach
2014-Feb-13 02:15 UTC
[LLVMdev] Heads-up: changing the structure of compiler-rt source tree
+Nick, who has been looking at similar things recently. On Feb 12, 2014, at 1:06 PM, Vadim Chugunov <vadimcn at gmail.com> wrote:> As it happens, I've already started massaging libunwind to make it a part of compiler-rt. > At the moment, I am shooting for the makefile build. Once that's done, I could use somebody's help to add it to cmake build system. > > It would be nice if somebody could look into disentangling compiler-rt from clang. I think that at the least it should be build-able together with LLVM (i.e. by checking it out into llvm/projects) without clang involvement. Completely standalone builds would be a plus, if feasible. > > Last but not the least: I still haven't heard anybody admitting to being a maintainer of compiler-rt :-) Somebody will need to review the patch and check it in... > > Vadim > > > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 6:12 AM, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com> wrote: > Hi David, > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 5:22 PM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On 12 Feb 2014, at 13:21, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:56 PM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > >> Are you going to move the unwind library there as part of the reorganisation? > > > > No. > > Given that the consensus appeared to be that this is where it belongs... why not? It seems strange to do a big reorganisation pass, but not do all of it. > > To be honest, I haven't worked with the unwind library. I'm fine with moving it to compiler-rt, but this should probably be done by someone with a sufficient > knowledge of the library and/or its use cases. I'd be glad to provide any help, though. > > -- > Alexey Samsonov, MSK > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140212/acf05560/attachment.html>
Alexey Samsonov
2014-Feb-13 07:48 UTC
[LLVMdev] Heads-up: changing the structure of compiler-rt source tree
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:06 AM, Vadim Chugunov <vadimcn at gmail.com> wrote:> As it happens, I've already started massaging libunwind to make it a part > of compiler-rt. > At the moment, I am shooting for the makefile build. Once that's done, I > could use somebody's help to add it to cmake build system. > > It would be nice if somebody could look into disentangling compiler-rt > from clang. I think that at the least it should be build-able together > with LLVM (i.e. by checking it out into llvm/projects) without clang > involvement. Completely standalone builds would be a plus, if feasible. >Yes, this would be nice to have. I hope to address this some day.> > Last but not the least: I still haven't heard anybody admitting to being a > maintainer of compiler-rt :-) Somebody will need to review the patch and > check it in... >+Daniel I think I can sign up for this. I can review the CMake integration. I don't really understand Makefile-based build, though.> Vadim > > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 6:12 AM, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com>wrote: > >> Hi David, >> >> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 5:22 PM, David Chisnall < >> David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 12 Feb 2014, at 13:21, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com> wrote: >>> >>> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:56 PM, David Chisnall < >>> David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: >>> >> Are you going to move the unwind library there as part of the >>> reorganisation? >>> > >>> > No. >>> >>> Given that the consensus appeared to be that this is where it belongs... >>> why not? It seems strange to do a big reorganisation pass, but not do all >>> of it. >> >> >> To be honest, I haven't worked with the unwind library. I'm fine with >> moving it to compiler-rt, but this should probably be done by someone with >> a sufficient >> knowledge of the library and/or its use cases. I'd be glad to provide any >> help, though. >> >> -- >> Alexey Samsonov, MSK >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >> >> >-- Alexey Samsonov, MSK -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140213/b7b9cb4e/attachment.html>