llvm dev - Jun 2015 - [LLVMdev] [RFC] Ideas on improving Compiler-RT CMake

> On 2015-Jun-01, at 19:47, Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com> wrote:
> 
>> If we drop support for building compiler-rt with GCC, this gets even
simpler. Compiler-rt is *Clang's* runtime library, after all.
> 
> I don’t know if it is on the table to drop supporting compiler-rt with GCC,
but that would dramatically simplify things.
Weird, I'd assumed building compiler-rt with something other than
clang was unsupported.  Maybe I'm missing something, but shouldn't
the only supported configuration be building with the just-built
clang?

On 6/2/15 2:38 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote:
>
>> On 2015-Jun-01, at 19:47, Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com>
wrote:
>>
>>> If we drop support for building compiler-rt with GCC, this gets
even simpler. Compiler-rt is *Clang's* runtime library, after all.
>>
>> I don’t know if it is on the table to drop supporting compiler-rt with
GCC, but that would dramatically simplify things.
>
> Weird, I'd assumed building compiler-rt with something other than
> clang was unsupported.  Maybe I'm missing something, but shouldn't
> the only supported configuration be building with the just-built
> clang?
The current default for an in-tree build is to build compiler-rt with 
whatever compiler is being used to build Clang... sometimes that 
compiler is GCC.

I agree though. We should always use the just-built Clang, and have that 
behavior be opt-out (if folks need it), instead of opt-in as it is now.


Jon
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
-- 
Jon Roelofs
jonathan at codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded

> On 2015-Jun-02, at 14:03, Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at
codesourcery.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/2/15 2:38 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2015-Jun-01, at 19:47, Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com>
wrote:
>>> 
>>>> If we drop support for building compiler-rt with GCC, this gets
even simpler. Compiler-rt is *Clang's* runtime library, after all.
>>> 
>>> I don’t know if it is on the table to drop supporting compiler-rt
with GCC, but that would dramatically simplify things.
>> 
>> Weird, I'd assumed building compiler-rt with something other than
>> clang was unsupported.  Maybe I'm missing something, but
shouldn't
>> the only supported configuration be building with the just-built
>> clang?
> 
> The current default for an in-tree build is to build compiler-rt with
whatever compiler is being used to build Clang... sometimes that compiler is
GCC.
> 
> I agree though. We should always use the just-built Clang, and have that
behavior be opt-out (if folks need it), instead of opt-in as it is now.
Right, it sounds like a bug, not a feature.

(I think configure+make gets this right already.)

On 2 Jun 2015 2:04 pm, "Jonathan Roelofs" <jonathan at
codesourcery.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/2/15 2:38 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 2015-Jun-01, at 19:47, Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com>
wrote:
>>>
>>>> If we drop support for building compiler-rt with GCC, this gets
even
simpler. Compiler-rt is *Clang's* runtime library, after
all.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don’t know if it is on the table to drop supporting compiler-rt
with
GCC, but that would dramatically simplify things.
>>
>>
>> Weird, I'd assumed building compiler-rt with something other than
>> clang was unsupported.  Maybe I'm missing something, but
shouldn't
>> the only supported configuration be building with the just-built
>> clang?
>
>
> The current default for an in-tree build is to build compiler-rt with
whatever compiler is being used to build Clang... sometimes that compiler
is GCC.
>
> I agree though. We should always use the just-built Clang, and have that
behavior be opt-out (if folks need it), instead of opt-in as it is now.

What would the build system do for a cross compile of Clang?
>
> Jon
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>
> --
> Jon Roelofs
> jonathan at codesourcery.com
> CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150602/09aee900/attachment.html>