llvm dev - Nov 2015 - [RFC] Strategies for Bootstrapping Compiler-RT builtins

>
> Cool. This then makes your other point about requiring LLVM tools less of
> an issue because the out-of-tree builds can use whatever tools you choose.
> We just need to make the builtins work so that you don’t need them already
> built.
With that in mind for an intiial solution before you get to stripping out
the cmake stuff so that it can do an out of tree bootstrap.
I have created a script that fits into the make bootstrapping method that
already exists.
Not sure if this is up for removal because it is not dependent on autotools?

Chris could you kindly add yourself as a reviewer to this
http://reviews.llvm.org/D14290


On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 6:15 PM, C Bergström <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Steve King via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Martell Malone <martellmalone at
gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Just as a point for building the builtins shouldn't we just
need
> llvm-ar ?
> >
> > Thanks for pointing this out and I hope llvm-ar is up to the task.
> > Even if targets must still port binutils, each step toward LLVM
> > self-reliance is a step in the right direction.
> >
> > Without getting too far ahead of ourselves, refactoring built-ins into
> > a distinct library is a great place to start.
>
> Before anyone starts refactoring binutils - if you're really zealous
> or have some strong logical reason against it - there is the BSD elf
> tools project
>
> http://sourceforge.net/p/elftoolchain/wiki/Home/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151103/d63e53c9/attachment.html>

> On Nov 3, 2015, at 9:24 AM, Martell Malone <martellmalone at
gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Cool. This then makes your other point about requiring LLVM tools less of
an issue because the out-of-tree builds can use whatever tools you choose. We
just need to make the builtins work so that you don’t need them already built.
> With that in mind for an intiial solution before you get to stripping out
the cmake stuff so that it can do an out of tree bootstrap.
> I have created a script that fits into the make bootstrapping method that
already exists.
> Not sure if this is up for removal because it is not dependent on auto
tools?
I will not be stripping out any of the existing CMake. If we go down this path
what I’m going to do is refactor the CMake to produce to logically separated
projects so that the builtins can be built with or without the runtime
libraries. It will all still be CMake-based.

-Chris
> 
> Chris could you kindly add yourself as a reviewer to this 
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D14290 <http://reviews.llvm.org/D14290>
> 
> 
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 6:15 PM, C Bergström <cbergstrom at pathscale.com
<mailto:cbergstrom at pathscale.com>> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Steve King via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Martell Malone <martellmalone at
gmail.com <mailto:martellmalone at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >> Just as a point for building the builtins shouldn't we just
need llvm-ar ?
> >
> > Thanks for pointing this out and I hope llvm-ar is up to the task.
> > Even if targets must still port binutils, each step toward LLVM
> > self-reliance is a step in the right direction.
> >
> > Without getting too far ahead of ourselves, refactoring built-ins into
> > a distinct library is a great place to start.
> 
> Before anyone starts refactoring binutils - if you're really zealous
> or have some strong logical reason against it - there is the BSD elf
> tools project
> 
> http://sourceforge.net/p/elftoolchain/wiki/Home/
<http://sourceforge.net/p/elftoolchain/wiki/Home/>
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151103/0291d49b/attachment.html>

>
> I will not be stripping out any of the existing CMake. If we go down this
> path what I’m going to do is refactor the CMake to produce to logically
> separated projects so that the builtins can be built with or without the
> runtime libraries. It will all still be CMake-based.
Sorry. s/stripping/seperating/g
I was still thinking about the stripping of the IOS build from the OSX
default build :)

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 3, 2015, at 9:24 AM, Martell Malone <martellmalone at
gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Cool. This then makes your other point about requiring LLVM tools less of
>> an issue because the out-of-tree builds can use whatever tools you
choose.
>> We just need to make the builtins work so that you don’t need them
already
>> built.
>
> With that in mind for an intiial solution before you get to stripping out
> the cmake stuff so that it can do an out of tree bootstrap.
> I have created a script that fits into the make bootstrapping method that
> already exists.
> Not sure if this is up for removal because it is not dependent on auto
> tools?
>
>
> I will not be stripping out any of the existing CMake. If we go down this
> path what I’m going to do is refactor the CMake to produce to logically
> separated projects so that the builtins can be built with or without the
> runtime libraries. It will all still be CMake-based.
>
> -Chris
>
>
> Chris could you kindly add yourself as a reviewer to this
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D14290
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 6:15 PM, C Bergström <cbergstrom at
pathscale.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Steve King via llvm-dev
>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Martell Malone <martellmalone
at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> Just as a point for building the builtins shouldn't we
just need
>> llvm-ar ?
>> >
>> > Thanks for pointing this out and I hope llvm-ar is up to the task.
>> > Even if targets must still port binutils, each step toward LLVM
>> > self-reliance is a step in the right direction.
>> >
>> > Without getting too far ahead of ourselves, refactoring built-ins
into
>> > a distinct library is a great place to start.
>>
>> Before anyone starts refactoring binutils - if you're really
zealous
>> or have some strong logical reason against it - there is the BSD elf
>> tools project
>>
>> http://sourceforge.net/p/elftoolchain/wiki/Home/
>>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151103/777ae780/attachment.html>