llvm dev - Dec 2014 - [LLVMdev] LLD developers: is anyone using the standalone CMake build for LLD?

I suspect the answer is "no" as it dies with a hard error for me.

I don't want to fix this if it isn't being used; I would rather delete
it
and avoid the complexity it brings. Thoughts?

This came up because I have changes to LLD's CMake build to support
LLVM_LIBDIR_SUFFIX more effectively, but I can't test them in a standalone
build.

-Chandler
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141228/40ecfd91/attachment.html>

I am not. I just put lld in llvm/tools

Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 28, 2014, at 07:43, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 
> I suspect the answer is "no" as it dies with a hard error for me.
> 
> I don't want to fix this if it isn't being used; I would rather
delete it and avoid the complexity it brings. Thoughts?
> 
> This came up because I have changes to LLD's CMake build to support
LLVM_LIBDIR_SUFFIX more effectively, but I can't test them in a standalone
build.
> 
> -Chandler

I do exactly the same thing and do not use the standalone CMake build for LLD.

On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola
<rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am not. I just put lld in llvm/tools
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Dec 28, 2014, at 07:43, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at
gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I suspect the answer is "no" as it dies with a hard error for
me.
>>
>> I don't want to fix this if it isn't being used; I would rather
delete it and avoid the complexity it brings. Thoughts?

I build lld in llvm/tools.

-Nick

On Dec 28, 2014, at 4:43 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com>
wrote:
> I suspect the answer is "no" as it dies with a hard error for me.
> 
> I don't want to fix this if it isn't being used; I would rather
delete it and avoid the complexity it brings. Thoughts?
> 
> This came up because I have changes to LLD's CMake build to support
LLVM_LIBDIR_SUFFIX more effectively, but I can't test them in a standalone
build.
> 
> -Chandler

Hi Chandler,

I prefer the standalone builds for each LLVM project.  I haven't been
including LLD in my builds, but I'll start doing that.  I'd be happy
to maintain that configuration.

Thanks,
Greg


On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 4:43 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com>
wrote:
> I suspect the answer is "no" as it dies with a hard error for me.
>
> I don't want to fix this if it isn't being used; I would rather
delete it
> and avoid the complexity it brings. Thoughts?
>
> This came up because I have changes to LLD's CMake build to support
> LLVM_LIBDIR_SUFFIX more effectively, but I can't test them in a
standalone
> build.
>
> -Chandler
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>

Is anyone using the autotools build for LLD?

Thanks,
Greg

On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Chandler,
>
> I prefer the standalone builds for each LLVM project.  I haven't been
> including LLD in my builds, but I'll start doing that.  I'd be
happy
> to maintain that configuration.
>
> Thanks,
> Greg
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 4:43 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at
gmail.com> wrote:
>> I suspect the answer is "no" as it dies with a hard error for
me.
>>
>> I don't want to fix this if it isn't being used; I would rather
delete it
>> and avoid the complexity it brings. Thoughts?
>>
>> This came up because I have changes to LLD's CMake build to support
>> LLVM_LIBDIR_SUFFIX more effectively, but I can't test them in a
standalone
>> build.
>>
>> -Chandler
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>