On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:45:03AM +0200, ardi via llvm-dev wrote: >> What I found is that the build system is really complex, performs many >> checks, and quite often takes wrong decisions (example: a fatal error >> if the OS X version is older than 10.7, instead of just disabling >> sanitizers and continuing with the build --moreover, if you manually >> disable the sanitizers build, its tests are not disabled at make >> check-all, so you end up with many tests failing because of a >> component you didn't build). > > Huh? If you check out only llvm and clang, nothing is checked for the > sanitizers, they don't get built and they don't get tested.But if you don't check out compiler-rt, you don't get builtins. Missing the feature of getting highly optimized code output is a big miss, IMHO. And I don't think builtins require anything apart from a standard compiler. ardi
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 02:31:59PM +0200, ardi via llvm-dev wrote:> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:45:03AM +0200, ardi via llvm-dev wrote: > >> What I found is that the build system is really complex, performs many > >> checks, and quite often takes wrong decisions (example: a fatal error > >> if the OS X version is older than 10.7, instead of just disabling > >> sanitizers and continuing with the build --moreover, if you manually > >> disable the sanitizers build, its tests are not disabled at make > >> check-all, so you end up with many tests failing because of a > >> component you didn't build). > > > > Huh? If you check out only llvm and clang, nothing is checked for the > > sanitizers, they don't get built and they don't get tested. > > But if you don't check out compiler-rt, you don't get builtins. > Missing the feature of getting highly optimized code output is a big > miss, IMHO. And I don't think builtins require anything apart from a > standard compiler.On most platforms you don't need compiler-rt except for the sanitizers. Joerg
On 4/15/16, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 02:31:59PM +0200, ardi via llvm-dev wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:45:03AM +0200, ardi via llvm-dev wrote: >> >> What I found is that the build system is really complex, performs many >> >> checks, and quite often takes wrong decisions (example: a fatal error >> >> if the OS X version is older than 10.7, instead of just disabling >> >> sanitizers and continuing with the build --moreover, if you manually >> >> disable the sanitizers build, its tests are not disabled at make >> >> check-all, so you end up with many tests failing because of a >> >> component you didn't build). >> > >> > Huh? If you check out only llvm and clang, nothing is checked for the >> > sanitizers, they don't get built and they don't get tested. >> >> But if you don't check out compiler-rt, you don't get builtins. >> Missing the feature of getting highly optimized code output is a big >> miss, IMHO. And I don't think builtins require anything apart from a >> standard compiler. > > On most platforms you don't need compiler-rt except for the sanitizers.Wait, do you mean that builtins for processors like x86_64 or PowerPC aren't being used by clang? I understood builtins were a key lib for getting maximum performance on the processors it supports, but maybe I misunderstood it. ardi