Alexey Samsonov
2015-Feb-13 02:31 UTC
[LLVMdev] RFC: Dropping support for building sanitizers with autotools
Hi everyone, TL;DR I plan to do subj unless anyone objects. Autotools support for building sanitizers was never complete, is a proper subset of CMake capabilities, and the gap between the features of CMake build and autotools is quickly increasing: 1) OS: autotools support Linux, Mac OS X and Android; CMake also supports FreeBSD and Windows. 2) Architectures: autotools support i386 and x86_64, CMake also supports MIPS, ARM/AArch64, PowerPC). 3) Library variants: autotools don't support building shared ASan runtime on Linux. 4 [!!!]) Autotools build doesn't have *any* support for building and running tests. 5) The sets of compiler flags we use to build runtimes are different in two builds, and are hard to kept in sync. Because of (4), sanitizer runtimes built with autotools are severely undertested, and maintaining two different build systems is a burden I would like to get rid of. Now seems to be a good time for that: we've cut off 3.6 release branch, and Hans assures me that 3.7 release process will use CMake. Are there existing users of configure/make that want sanitizers to be available in their build? Are there other arguments for keeping the autotools build "working" I'm missing? -- Alexey Samsonov vonosmas at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150212/cefe4480/attachment.html>
Chandler Carruth
2015-Feb-13 02:41 UTC
[LLVMdev] RFC: Dropping support for building sanitizers with autotools
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> wrote:> Hi everyone, > > TL;DR I plan to do subj unless anyone objects. > > Autotools support for building sanitizers was never complete, is a proper > subset of CMake capabilities, and the gap between the features of CMake > build and autotools is quickly increasing: > 1) OS: autotools support Linux, Mac OS X and Android; CMake also supports > FreeBSD and Windows. > 2) Architectures: autotools support i386 and x86_64, CMake also supports > MIPS, ARM/AArch64, PowerPC). > 3) Library variants: autotools don't support building shared ASan runtime > on Linux. > 4 [!!!]) Autotools build doesn't have *any* support for building and > running tests. > 5) The sets of compiler flags we use to build runtimes are different in > two builds, and are hard to kept in sync. > > Because of (4), sanitizer runtimes built with autotools are severely > undertested, and maintaining two different build systems is a burden I > would like to get rid of. Now seems to be a good time for that: we've cut > off 3.6 release branch, and Hans assures me that 3.7 release process will > use CMake. >+1, ship it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150212/37f9f861/attachment.html>
Hal Finkel
2015-Feb-13 02:59 UTC
[LLVMdev] RFC: Dropping support for building sanitizers with autotools
----- Original Message -----> From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> > To: "Alexey Samsonov" <vonosmas at gmail.com> > Cc: "Nico Weber" <nicolasweber at gmx.de>, "Clang Developers List" <cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "LLVM Dev" > <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 8:41:18 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: Dropping support for building sanitizers with autotools > > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Alexey Samsonov < vonosmas at gmail.com > > wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > TL;DR I plan to do subj unless anyone objects. > > > Autotools support for building sanitizers was never complete, is a > proper subset of CMake capabilities, and the gap between the > features of CMake build and autotools is quickly increasing: > 1) OS: autotools support Linux, Mac OS X and Android; CMake also > supports FreeBSD and Windows. > 2) Architectures: autotools support i386 and x86_64, CMake also > supports MIPS, ARM/AArch64, PowerPC). > 3) Library variants: autotools don't support building shared ASan > runtime on Linux. > 4 [!!!]) Autotools build doesn't have *any* support for building and > running tests. > 5) The sets of compiler flags we use to build runtimes are different > in two builds, and are hard to kept in sync. > > > Because of (4), sanitizer runtimes built with autotools are severely > undertested, and maintaining two different build systems is a burden > I would like to get rid of. Now seems to be a good time for that: > we've cut off 3.6 release branch, and Hans assures me that 3.7 > release process will use CMake. > +1, ship it.I agree. I've found the autotools building support fairly useless precisely because there's no way to run the tests. -Hal> _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >-- Hal Finkel Assistant Computational Scientist Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory
Nico Weber
2015-Feb-13 21:16 UTC
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Dropping support for building sanitizers with autotools
Sounds fine to me, but be aware that some of the libraries in compiler-rt other than the sanitizers currently are only built correctly in the autotools build (for example, I think libprofile_rt for iOS isn't built correctly in the cmake build). On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> wrote:> Hi everyone, > > TL;DR I plan to do subj unless anyone objects. > > Autotools support for building sanitizers was never complete, is a proper > subset of CMake capabilities, and the gap between the features of CMake > build and autotools is quickly increasing: > 1) OS: autotools support Linux, Mac OS X and Android; CMake also supports > FreeBSD and Windows. > 2) Architectures: autotools support i386 and x86_64, CMake also supports > MIPS, ARM/AArch64, PowerPC). > 3) Library variants: autotools don't support building shared ASan runtime > on Linux. > 4 [!!!]) Autotools build doesn't have *any* support for building and > running tests. > 5) The sets of compiler flags we use to build runtimes are different in > two builds, and are hard to kept in sync. > > Because of (4), sanitizer runtimes built with autotools are severely > undertested, and maintaining two different build systems is a burden I > would like to get rid of. Now seems to be a good time for that: we've cut > off 3.6 release branch, and Hans assures me that 3.7 release process will > use CMake. > > Are there existing users of configure/make that want sanitizers to be > available in their build? Are there other arguments for keeping the > autotools build "working" I'm missing? > > -- > Alexey Samsonov > vonosmas at gmail.com > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-dev mailing list > cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150213/f1e8401c/attachment.html>
Alexey Samsonov
2015-Feb-13 22:36 UTC
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Dropping support for building sanitizers with autotools
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote:> Sounds fine to me, but be aware that some of the libraries in compiler-rt > other than the sanitizers currently are only built correctly in the > autotools build (for example, I think libprofile_rt for iOS isn't built > correctly in the cmake build). >Sure, I don't plan to remove support for builtins and libprofile.> > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> TL;DR I plan to do subj unless anyone objects. >> >> Autotools support for building sanitizers was never complete, is a proper >> subset of CMake capabilities, and the gap between the features of CMake >> build and autotools is quickly increasing: >> 1) OS: autotools support Linux, Mac OS X and Android; CMake also supports >> FreeBSD and Windows. >> 2) Architectures: autotools support i386 and x86_64, CMake also supports >> MIPS, ARM/AArch64, PowerPC). >> 3) Library variants: autotools don't support building shared ASan runtime >> on Linux. >> 4 [!!!]) Autotools build doesn't have *any* support for building and >> running tests. >> 5) The sets of compiler flags we use to build runtimes are different in >> two builds, and are hard to kept in sync. >> >> Because of (4), sanitizer runtimes built with autotools are severely >> undertested, and maintaining two different build systems is a burden I >> would like to get rid of. Now seems to be a good time for that: we've cut >> off 3.6 release branch, and Hans assures me that 3.7 release process will >> use CMake. >> >> Are there existing users of configure/make that want sanitizers to be >> available in their build? Are there other arguments for keeping the >> autotools build "working" I'm missing? >> >> -- >> Alexey Samsonov >> vonosmas at gmail.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cfe-dev mailing list >> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev >> >> >-- Alexey Samsonov vonosmas at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150213/c09670fa/attachment.html>
Kostya Serebryany
2015-Feb-17 18:54 UTC
[LLVMdev] RFC: Dropping support for building sanitizers with autotools
+1 (in case you still need mine) On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> wrote:> Hi everyone, > > TL;DR I plan to do subj unless anyone objects. > > Autotools support for building sanitizers was never complete, is a proper > subset of CMake capabilities, and the gap between the features of CMake > build and autotools is quickly increasing: > 1) OS: autotools support Linux, Mac OS X and Android; CMake also supports > FreeBSD and Windows. > 2) Architectures: autotools support i386 and x86_64, CMake also supports > MIPS, ARM/AArch64, PowerPC). > 3) Library variants: autotools don't support building shared ASan runtime > on Linux. > 4 [!!!]) Autotools build doesn't have *any* support for building and > running tests. > 5) The sets of compiler flags we use to build runtimes are different in > two builds, and are hard to kept in sync. > > Because of (4), sanitizer runtimes built with autotools are severely > undertested, and maintaining two different build systems is a burden I > would like to get rid of. Now seems to be a good time for that: we've cut > off 3.6 release branch, and Hans assures me that 3.7 release process will > use CMake. > > Are there existing users of configure/make that want sanitizers to be > available in their build? Are there other arguments for keeping the > autotools build "working" I'm missing? > > -- > Alexey Samsonov > vonosmas at gmail.com >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150217/8a86ec35/attachment.html>
Anna Zaks
2015-Feb-17 23:37 UTC
[LLVMdev] RFC: Dropping support for building sanitizers with autotools
Unfortunately, we do rely on the Autotools to build for darwin. The lack of proper testing is very unfortunate. In the future, we will either drop the dependency on Makefile/autoconf build or add the support for sanitizer testing. Anna.> On Feb 17, 2015, at 10:54 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > +1 (in case you still need mine) > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com <mailto:vonosmas at gmail.com>> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > TL;DR I plan to do subj unless anyone objects. > > Autotools support for building sanitizers was never complete, is a proper subset of CMake capabilities, and the gap between the features of CMake build and autotools is quickly increasing: > 1) OS: autotools support Linux, Mac OS X and Android; CMake also supports FreeBSD and Windows. > 2) Architectures: autotools support i386 and x86_64, CMake also supports MIPS, ARM/AArch64, PowerPC). > 3) Library variants: autotools don't support building shared ASan runtime on Linux. > 4 [!!!]) Autotools build doesn't have *any* support for building and running tests. > 5) The sets of compiler flags we use to build runtimes are different in two builds, and are hard to kept in sync. > > Because of (4), sanitizer runtimes built with autotools are severely undertested, and maintaining two different build systems is a burden I would like to get rid of. Now seems to be a good time for that: we've cut off 3.6 release branch, and Hans assures me that 3.7 release process will use CMake. > > Are there existing users of configure/make that want sanitizers to be available in their build? Are there other arguments for keeping the autotools build "working" I'm missing? > > -- > Alexey Samsonov > vonosmas at gmail.com <mailto:vonosmas at gmail.com> > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu> http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu <http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev>-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150217/36102db7/attachment.html>