llvm dev - Feb 2015 - [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>

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>

----- 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

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>

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>

+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>

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>