llvm dev - Jan 2015 - [LLVMdev] LLD Standalone CMake build

How do you feel about adding LLD to the LLVM repo?  Could it follow
the same path as the integrated assembler?  That is, Clang keeps it
off by default for each architecture until it's ready for prime time.

-Greg

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at
gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm hoping to revive the LLD standalone CMake build.  I'm new
to this
>> build but it looks like it borrowed code from an old version of
>> compiler-rt, which I did some work on last year.  Like compiler-rt,
>> I'd like to get the LLD build up running with only
CMAKE_PREFIX_PATH
>> instead of defining custom variables like LLD_PATH_TO_LLVM_BUILD and
>> LLD_PATH_TO_LLVM_SOURCE.  Any objection to that?
>>
>> Also, two files ELFLinkingContext.cpp and MachOLinkingContext.cpp
>> include a private header from the LLVM source tree,
>> "llvm/Config/config.h" to get access to HAVE_CXXABI_H.  Can
the
>> dependency on HAVE_CXXABI_H be removed?  If no, mind if I add a
>> config.h.cmake to LLD's "include/lld/Config"?
>
>
> I personally would be opposed to adding configure machinery to LLD's
build.
> It is just duplicating the machinery already in LLVM.
>
> -- Sean Silva
>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Greg
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
>

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com>
wrote:
> How do you feel about adding LLD to the LLVM repo?  Could it follow
> the same path as the integrated assembler?  That is, Clang keeps it
> off by default for each architecture until it's ready for prime time.
>
While I'm not personally opposed to it, I think it's reasonable to avoid
if
people want to not have the clutter of a linker when checking out and using
LLVM.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150108/47505472/attachment.html>

On 8 January 2015 at 19:46, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at
gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> How do you feel about adding LLD to the LLVM repo?  Could it follow
>> the same path as the integrated assembler?  That is, Clang keeps it
>> off by default for each architecture until it's ready for prime
time.
>
>
> While I'm not personally opposed to it, I think it's reasonable to
avoid if
> people want to not have the clutter of a linker when checking out and using
> LLVM.
If this ever happens, we *must* fix the coding style first. I would
also list as must fix before:

* check-all clean on a asan and msan build.
* -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=ON works.

Cheers,
Rafael