David Blaikie via llvm-dev
2021-Mar-15 17:59 UTC
[llvm-dev] [PROPOSAL] Add Bazel Build Configuration to the LLVM Monorepo
Thanks for the summary & other work with this proposal, Geoffrey! On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:49 AM Geoffrey Martin-Noble <gcmn at google.com> wrote:> This is an approval of the proposal (patch > <https://reviews.llvm.org/D98639> to actually indicate that in the status > field). The next step is landing the Bazel build files, which will be > subject to the normal patch review process. Chris added notes from our > discussion about the issues discussed, which includes the location of the > build files. We agreed these should be in the root `utils/` directory and > we also think the gn build should move there (it's current location > predates the monorepo). I was going to start a separate thread, but I'll > just +Nico Weber <thakis at google.com>. Nico can you take a look at moving > the gn files? Hopefully this should be pretty trivial? > > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:30 AM David Blaikie via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Thanks for the update Chris - could you summarize what this means for the >> proposal/what stage in the proposal process this is? Does this represent >> approval, and the patch should now be submitted without further high level >> design review (that is covered by the proposal review)? Or are there >> further steps? >> >> (does the approval indicate where these files should live? Next to the gn >> files? A new top level location? or is that still up to further community >> review) >> >> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 9:22 AM Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> Hello LLVM-Dev, >>> >>> Last week the review managers met to discuss this proposal. I've updated >>> the proposal document with a summary of the meeting. You can find the >>> proposal online here >>> <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-www/blob/main/proposals/LP0002-BazelBuildConfiguration.md> >>> . >>> >>> The TL;DR is that the review managers agreed the proposal should be >>> approved. >>> >>> Thank you everyone who participated in the conversations around this >>> proposal, and especially Geoffrey for putting the proposal together and >>> shepherding it along. >>> >>> -Chris >>> >>> On Feb 19, 2021, at 1:46 PM, Geoffrey Martin-Noble <gcmn at google.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> A reminder that the review period for this ends 2021-02-23, this coming >>> Tuesday. Rest assured that if you expressed opinions in the previous RFC >>> threads then review managers will also consider those points when >>> discussing. We're not going to skip some point just because it wasn't >>> posted in the correct thread :-D >>> >>> Best, >>> Geoffrey >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 3:44 AM Renato Golin <rengolin at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 21:00, Geoffrey Martin-Noble <gcmn at google.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> To expand a bit on Eric's response, the intent here is *not* to make >>>>> Bazel a supported build system for LLVM or to replace CMake (which I >>>>> believe the proposal makes clear), but rather to enable Bazel usage and >>>>> shared configuration for people and projects that already use it. I do not >>>>> expect that Bazel will cover all the use cases currently supported by LLVM >>>>> CMake any time soon (ever?).I don't work on Bazel itself, so have no >>>>> insight on the support plan for those architectures. Only developers >>>>> interested in working with Bazel would be expected to use or update the >>>>> configuration, so lack of support for specific architectures should not >>>>> affect things, I think. >>>>> >>>> >>>> My views exactly. Bazel will not be a "supported" build system and >>>> doesn't need to build on all platforms and environments LLVM builds. It >>>> should only concern people that actually use Bazel and be completely >>>> transparent to the rest who don't. >>>> >>>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210315/e4286d23/attachment.html>
Nico Weber via llvm-dev
2021-Mar-15 18:02 UTC
[llvm-dev] [PROPOSAL] Add Bazel Build Configuration to the LLVM Monorepo
Yes, moving gn shouldn't be a big problem. It needs some minor bot and docs wrangling. Let me know once this is in and I'll work on moving the GN files. Should be doable in a week or two. On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 2:00 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:> Thanks for the summary & other work with this proposal, Geoffrey! > > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:49 AM Geoffrey Martin-Noble <gcmn at google.com> > wrote: > >> This is an approval of the proposal (patch >> <https://reviews.llvm.org/D98639> to actually indicate that in the >> status field). The next step is landing the Bazel build files, which will >> be subject to the normal patch review process. Chris added notes from our >> discussion about the issues discussed, which includes the location of the >> build files. We agreed these should be in the root `utils/` directory and >> we also think the gn build should move there (it's current location >> predates the monorepo). I was going to start a separate thread, but I'll >> just +Nico Weber <thakis at google.com>. Nico can you take a look at moving >> the gn files? Hopefully this should be pretty trivial? >> >> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:30 AM David Blaikie via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> Thanks for the update Chris - could you summarize what this means for >>> the proposal/what stage in the proposal process this is? Does this >>> represent approval, and the patch should now be submitted without further >>> high level design review (that is covered by the proposal review)? Or are >>> there further steps? >>> >>> (does the approval indicate where these files should live? Next to the >>> gn files? A new top level location? or is that still up to further >>> community review) >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 9:22 AM Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev < >>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello LLVM-Dev, >>>> >>>> Last week the review managers met to discuss this proposal. I've >>>> updated the proposal document with a summary of the meeting. You can find >>>> the proposal online here >>>> <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-www/blob/main/proposals/LP0002-BazelBuildConfiguration.md> >>>> . >>>> >>>> The TL;DR is that the review managers agreed the proposal should be >>>> approved. >>>> >>>> Thank you everyone who participated in the conversations around this >>>> proposal, and especially Geoffrey for putting the proposal together and >>>> shepherding it along. >>>> >>>> -Chris >>>> >>>> On Feb 19, 2021, at 1:46 PM, Geoffrey Martin-Noble <gcmn at google.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> A reminder that the review period for this ends 2021-02-23, this coming >>>> Tuesday. Rest assured that if you expressed opinions in the previous RFC >>>> threads then review managers will also consider those points when >>>> discussing. We're not going to skip some point just because it wasn't >>>> posted in the correct thread :-D >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Geoffrey >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 3:44 AM Renato Golin <rengolin at gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 21:00, Geoffrey Martin-Noble <gcmn at google.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> To expand a bit on Eric's response, the intent here is *not* to make >>>>>> Bazel a supported build system for LLVM or to replace CMake (which I >>>>>> believe the proposal makes clear), but rather to enable Bazel usage and >>>>>> shared configuration for people and projects that already use it. I do not >>>>>> expect that Bazel will cover all the use cases currently supported by LLVM >>>>>> CMake any time soon (ever?).I don't work on Bazel itself, so have no >>>>>> insight on the support plan for those architectures. Only developers >>>>>> interested in working with Bazel would be expected to use or update the >>>>>> configuration, so lack of support for specific architectures should not >>>>>> affect things, I think. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My views exactly. Bazel will not be a "supported" build system and >>>>> doesn't need to build on all platforms and environments LLVM builds. It >>>>> should only concern people that actually use Bazel and be completely >>>>> transparent to the rest who don't. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >>> >>-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210315/d7bfa75c/attachment.html>