llvm dev - Feb 2015 - [LLVMdev] RFC: Dropping support for building sanitizers with autotools

On 18/02/2015 23:29, Alexey Samsonov wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Anna Zaks <ganna at apple.com
<mailto:ganna at apple.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
>>     On Feb 17, 2015, at 4:00 PM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at
gmail.com <mailto:vonosmas at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>     On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Anna Zaks <ganna at apple.com
<mailto:ganna at apple.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         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.
>>
>>
>>     Sorry, for some reason I had the impression that you're also
more interested in CMake buiild :-/. Only now I noticed that recent Kuba's
patches about -isysroot fix both makefile and CMake
>>     build system (and he's probably not very happy about it).
>>
>>     I believe the effort required to port sanitizer unit tests to
autotools is not worth it, and it's better to spend that time migrating the
release tools to CMake. Keeping two build systems "working"
>>     was and is a manageable, but unpleasant burden. Providing a good
test coverage for two runtime versions is hard, and keeping two runtime versions
"equivalent" (built with the same compiler flags)
>>     is close to impossible.
> 
>     I agree. The solution where we only rely on cmake build would be the
best option.
> 
>>      
>>     I understand that removing autotools support right now breaks your
integration. What if we just delete autotools support from all Linux builds?
>>
> 
>     Yes. That is fine by me.
> 
> 
> OK, I've removed the support for sanitizers in makefile/autoconf builds
on Linux in r229754-r229756.
It is possible to build LLVM & Clang with autotools and compiler-rt with
cmake?

Currently, dropping the autotools support is breaking the build of compiler-rt
for llvm.org/apt/ and
the Debian & Ubuntu packaging.

I agree that the autotools support in compiler-rt was limited but it was doing
the job correctly...

Could you consider reverting this changes?

Thanks,
Sylvestre
PS: I don't mind switching to cmake but here are still a few blocking bugs:
http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=15732

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre at debian.org>
wrote:
>
> > OK, I've removed the support for sanitizers in makefile/autoconf
builds
> on Linux in r229754-r229756.
> It is possible to build LLVM & Clang with autotools and compiler-rt
with
> cmake?
>
> Currently, dropping the autotools support is breaking the build of
> compiler-rt for llvm.org/apt/ and
> the Debian & Ubuntu packaging.
>
> I agree that the autotools support in compiler-rt was limited but it was
> doing the job correctly...
>
> Could you consider reverting this changes?
>
> Thanks,
> Sylvestre
> PS: I don't mind switching to cmake but here are still a few blocking
bugs:
> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=15732

Can you point at which open bugs in that list actually affect packaging for
Debian? I assume http://llvm.org/pr15493, which is about building a
monolithic libLLVM-N.M.so, is the main one and nothing else matters.

When packaging, do you build all the LLVM subprojects together or
separately one after another? If you build separately, you should be able
to build compiler-rt with cmake and keep building LLVM with autoconf.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150224/1626b954/attachment.html>

> On Feb 24, 2015, at 9:07 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre at
debian.org <mailto:sylvestre at debian.org>> wrote:
> > OK, I've removed the support for sanitizers in makefile/autoconf
builds on Linux in r229754-r229756.
> It is possible to build LLVM & Clang with autotools and compiler-rt
with cmake?
> 
> Currently, dropping the autotools support is breaking the build of
compiler-rt for llvm.org/apt/ <http://llvm.org/apt/> and
> the Debian & Ubuntu packaging.
> 
> I agree that the autotools support in compiler-rt was limited but it was
doing the job correctly...
> 
> Could you consider reverting this changes?
> 
> Thanks,
> Sylvestre
> PS: I don't mind switching to cmake but here are still a few blocking
bugs:
> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=15732
<http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=15732>
> 
> Can you point at which open bugs in that list actually affect packaging for
Debian? I assume http://llvm.org/pr15493 <http://llvm.org/pr15493>, which
is about building a monolithic libLLVM-N.M.so <http://libllvm-n.m.so/>, is
the main one and nothing else matters.
Sorry for not updating the bug, but I landed those patches last week, so this
should be fixed:

r229720: Enable standard so versioning for libLLVM.

-Chris
> 
> When packaging, do you build all the LLVM subprojects together or
separately one after another? If you build separately, you should be able to
build compiler-rt with cmake and keep building LLVM with autoconf.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150224/158f5233/attachment.html>

Hi Sylvestre,

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre at debian.org>
wrote:
> On 18/02/2015 23:29, Alexey Samsonov wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Anna Zaks <ganna at apple.com
<mailto:
> ganna at apple.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>     On Feb 17, 2015, at 4:00 PM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at
gmail.com
> <mailto:vonosmas at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>     On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Anna Zaks <ganna at
apple.com
> <mailto:ganna at apple.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>         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.
> >>
> >>
> >>     Sorry, for some reason I had the impression that you're
also more
> interested in CMake buiild :-/. Only now I noticed that recent Kuba's
> patches about -isysroot fix both makefile and CMake
> >>     build system (and he's probably not very happy about it).
> >>
> >>     I believe the effort required to port sanitizer unit tests to
> autotools is not worth it, and it's better to spend that time migrating
the
> release tools to CMake. Keeping two build systems "working"
> >>     was and is a manageable, but unpleasant burden. Providing a
good
> test coverage for two runtime versions is hard, and keeping two runtime
> versions "equivalent" (built with the same compiler flags)
> >>     is close to impossible.
> >
> >     I agree. The solution where we only rely on cmake build would be
the
> best option.
> >
> >>
> >>     I understand that removing autotools support right now breaks
your
> integration. What if we just delete autotools support from all Linux
builds?
> >>
> >
> >     Yes. That is fine by me.
> >
> >
> > OK, I've removed the support for sanitizers in makefile/autoconf
builds
> on Linux in r229754-r229756.
> It is possible to build LLVM & Clang with autotools and compiler-rt
with
> cmake?
>
Yes, that's one of the options... Probably we can invoke cmake directly
from Makefile.
>
> Currently, dropping the autotools support is breaking the build of
> compiler-rt for llvm.org/apt/ and
> the Debian & Ubuntu packaging.
>
Could you point at the failing build? Jenkins (
http://llvm-jenkins.debian.net/) has dozens of them, I don't know where to
look. What scripts / rules do you
use to build the packages?

> I agree that the autotools support in compiler-rt was limited but it was
> doing the job correctly...
>
Is it possible to just exclude sanitizer runtimes from autotools-built
packages until all debian package build process is ported to CMake?
>
> Could you consider reverting this changes?
>
> Thanks,
> Sylvestre
> PS: I don't mind switching to cmake but here are still a few blocking
bugs:
> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=15732
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>


-- 
Alexey Samsonov
vonosmas at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150224/1bc8fd82/attachment.html>

On 24/02/2015 22:40, Alexey Samsonov wrote:
>
>     Currently, dropping the autotools support is breaking the build of
>     compiler-rt for llvm.org/apt/ <http://llvm.org/apt/> and
>     the Debian & Ubuntu packaging.
>
>
> Could you point at the failing build? Jenkins
> (http://llvm-jenkins.debian.net/) has dozens of them, I don't know
> where to look. What scripts / rules do you
> use to build the packages?
For example, you will find the issue here:
http://llvm-jenkins.debian.net/job/llvm-toolchain-utopic-binaries/architecture=i386,distribution=utopic/643/console

Sylvestre

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150302/0c2fd341/attachment.html>

On 24/02/2015 18:07, Reid Kleckner wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre at
debian.org
> <mailto:sylvestre at debian.org>> wrote:
>
>     > OK, I've removed the support for sanitizers in
makefile/autoconf
>     builds on Linux in r229754-r229756.
>     It is possible to build LLVM & Clang with autotools and
>     compiler-rt with cmake?
>
>     Currently, dropping the autotools support is breaking the build of
>     compiler-rt for llvm.org/apt/ <http://llvm.org/apt/> and
>     the Debian & Ubuntu packaging.
>
>     I agree that the autotools support in compiler-rt was limited but
>     it was doing the job correctly...
>
>     Could you consider reverting this changes?
>
>     Thanks,
>     Sylvestre
>     PS: I don't mind switching to cmake but here are still a few
>     blocking bugs:
>     http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=15732
>
>
> Can you point at which open bugs in that list actually affect
> packaging for Debian? I assume http://llvm.org/pr15493, which is about
> building a monolithic libLLVM-N.M.so <http://libLLVM-N.M.so>, is the
> main one and nothing else matters.
>
> When packaging, do you build all the LLVM subprojects together or
> separately one after another? If you build separately, you should be
> able to build compiler-rt with cmake and keep building LLVM with autoconf.
Alll together at once.

Anyway, it is now time to switch to cmake...
With PR15493 fixed, for now, I have been blocked by
http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=22725 (lldb build failing).

Once this is fixed, I will have a look to finalize the autotools to
cmake migration for LLVM 3.7.

Thanks,
Sylvestre

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150302/81d72f1c/attachment.html>