llvm dev - Jul 2016 - [CMake] LLVM_PROGRAM_PREFIX support

Hi,

   I am planning to add support to CMake so that the binaries of llvm will
have a prefix appended to it.

At this point, I am stuck on which approach to follow

 

1.       Append the prefix during build and install time. If so, this might
involve tweaking lit infrastructure to make sure lit picks the prefixed
binaries.

2.       Append the prefix only during install time.

a.       Either create symbolic links with prefixed names to existing
binaries. On windows this might create copies bloating the install directory

b.      Or rename the existing binaries with prefixed name.

 

We may not need all the binaries to be prefixed . It doesn't make sense to
prefix the utils FileCheck, not, count, llvm-config etc.

I might add two CMake variables 
>LLVM_PROGRAM_PREFIX
>LLVM_PROGRAM_PREFIX_EXCLUSION_LIST (This will specify the list of binaries
that don't need a prefix)

 

Let me know your thoughts 

 

--Sumanth G

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160720/844e775a/attachment.html>

I'm not against the idea, but why do we need prefixes at all?  I understand
with GCC the need to prefix with the target triple as it uses separate
programs for each target, but I think that is not the case with LLVM/CLang.

 

In any case, if prefixes are supported, why not universally apply to all
rather than having special exemptions that are going to make generalised
build configuration more difficult?

 

            MartinO

 

From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Sumanth
Gundapaneni via llvm-dev
Sent: 20 July 2016 20:48
To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Subject: [llvm-dev] [CMake] LLVM_PROGRAM_PREFIX support

 

Hi,

   I am planning to add support to CMake so that the binaries of llvm will
have a prefix appended to it.

At this point, I am stuck on which approach to follow

 

1.       Append the prefix during build and install time. If so, this might
involve tweaking lit infrastructure to make sure lit picks the prefixed
binaries.

2.       Append the prefix only during install time.

a.       Either create symbolic links with prefixed names to existing
binaries. On windows this might create copies bloating the install directory

b.      Or rename the existing binaries with prefixed name.

 

We may not need all the binaries to be prefixed . It doesn't make sense to
prefix the utils FileCheck, not, count, llvm-config etc.

I might add two CMake variables 
>LLVM_PROGRAM_PREFIX
>LLVM_PROGRAM_PREFIX_EXCLUSION_LIST (This will specify the list of binaries
that don't need a prefix)

 

Let me know your thoughts 

 

--Sumanth G

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160720/dbe6a138/attachment.html>

On 7/20/2016 2:52 PM, Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev
wrote:
> I’m not against the idea, but why do we need prefixes at all?  I
> understand with GCC the need to prefix with the target triple as it uses
> separate programs for each target, but I think that is not the case with
> LLVM/CLang
This has been discussed in the past and there was some interest in this 
feature. Our use case is that we ship the Hexagon compiler that only has 
the Hexagon target in it. On top of that, it is a cross-compiler, so it 
runs on X86, but generates code for Hexagon. All relevant binaries in 
that installation are prefixed with hexagon-, so that clang is 
hexagon-clang, etc. This avoids any potential name conflicts with the 
host clang.

-Krzysztof

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, 
hosted by The Linux Foundation

> In any case, if prefixes are supported, why not universally apply to all
rather than having special exemptions that are going to make generalised
build configuration more difficult?

Agree. But, this is purely implementation specific.

 

From: Martin J. O'Riordan [mailto:martin.oriordan at movidius.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 2:53 PM
To: 'Sumanth Gundapaneni' <sgundapa at codeaurora.org>
Cc: 'LLVM Developers' <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Subject: RE: [llvm-dev] [CMake] LLVM_PROGRAM_PREFIX support

 

I'm not against the idea, but why do we need prefixes at all?  I understand
with GCC the need to prefix with the target triple as it uses separate
programs for each target, but I think that is not the case with LLVM/CLang.

 

In any case, if prefixes are supported, why not universally apply to all
rather than having special exemptions that are going to make generalised
build configuration more difficult?

 

            MartinO

 

From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Sumanth
Gundapaneni via llvm-dev
Sent: 20 July 2016 20:48
To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 
Subject: [llvm-dev] [CMake] LLVM_PROGRAM_PREFIX support

 

Hi,

   I am planning to add support to CMake so that the binaries of llvm will
have a prefix appended to it.

At this point, I am stuck on which approach to follow

 

1.       Append the prefix during build and install time. If so, this might
involve tweaking lit infrastructure to make sure lit picks the prefixed
binaries.

2.       Append the prefix only during install time.

a.       Either create symbolic links with prefixed names to existing
binaries. On windows this might create copies bloating the install directory

b.      Or rename the existing binaries with prefixed name.

 

We may not need all the binaries to be prefixed . It doesn't make sense to
prefix the utils FileCheck, not, count, llvm-config etc.

I might add two CMake variables 
>LLVM_PROGRAM_PREFIX
>LLVM_PROGRAM_PREFIX_EXCLUSION_LIST (This will specify the list of binaries
that don't need a prefix)

 

Let me know your thoughts 

 

--Sumanth G

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160720/e4d19154/attachment-0001.html>