search for: libcxx_have_cxx_atomics_without_lib

...-std=c++11 failure. Instead it seems likely that the compile test for -std=c++11 is failing due to mis-configuring -latomic. > > Can you confirm the bot has libatomic installed? You shouldn't need it on x86-64. The issue there is that cmake is reporting, incorrectly: -- Performing Test LIBCXX_HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB -- Performing Test LIBCXX_HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB - Failed despite that previously in the same run, the same test configuring llvm itself worked: -- Performing Test HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB -- Performing Test HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB - Success I suspect that the flags change has some...

...eems likely that the compile test for -std=c++11 is failing due to > mis-configuring -latomic. > > > > Can you confirm the bot has libatomic installed? > > You shouldn't need it on x86-64. The issue there is that cmake is > reporting, incorrectly: > -- Performing Test LIBCXX_HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB > -- Performing Test LIBCXX_HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB - Failed > > despite that previously in the same run, the same test configuring llvm > itself worked: > -- Performing Test HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB > -- Performing Test HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB - Success > > I...

So it seems that libatomic went missing between build #1379 and #1380, so I don't think this is related to the -std=c++11 failure. Instead it seems likely that the compile test for -std=c++11 is failing due to mis-configuring -latomic. Can you confirm the bot has libatomic installed? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

...U ld -- Looking for fopen in c -- Looking for fopen in c - found -- Looking for __gcc_personality_v0 in gcc_s -- Looking for __gcc_personality_v0 in gcc_s - found -- Performing Test LIBCXX_SUPPORTS_NODEFAULTLIBS_FLAG -- Performing Test LIBCXX_SUPPORTS_NODEFAULTLIBS_FLAG - Success -- Performing Test LIBCXX_HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB -- Performing Test LIBCXX_HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB - Success -- Looking for __atomic_fetch_add_8 in atomic -- Looking for __atomic_fetch_add_8 in atomic - found -- Looking for pthread_create in pthread -- Looking for pthread_create in pthread - found -- Looking for ccos in m -- Looking for ccos...

...LTLIBS_FLAG -- Performing Test LIBCXX_SUPPORTS_NODEFAULTLIBS_FLAG - Success -- Found compiler-rt library: /usr/local/lib/clang/9.0.0/lib/linux/libclang_rt.builtins-x86_64.a -- Performing Test LIBCXX_HAS_COMMENT_LIB_PRAGMA -- Performing Test LIBCXX_HAS_COMMENT_LIB_PRAGMA - Success -- Performing Test LIBCXX_HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB -- Performing Test LIBCXX_HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB - Failed -- Looking for __atomic_fetch_add_8 in atomic -- Looking for __atomic_fetch_add_8 in atomic - found -- Performing Test LIBCXX_HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITH_LIB -- Performing Test LIBCXX_HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITH_LIB - Failed CMake Warning at /home...

...the point. Bleeding options from LLVM & Clang builds into runtime libraries is not cool. It causes lots of problems on Darwin, so we’re sensitive to this. > To get cmake to work, I have to set HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB, even though I have no intention of building LLVM. I then get to set LIBCXX_HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB too, because reasons. This is bad. I’m curious why you need to set those ever. Have you diagnosed this? For you to need to set that it means the host toolchain isn’t properly passing the CMake checks. > Multi-libs require multiple independent build directories, with all the associated cmake over...

...tionality in use is non-trivial. Thoughts? -Chris > On Jun 9, 2016, at 2:09 PM, Craig, Ben <ben.craig at codeaurora.org> wrote: > > >>> To get cmake to work, I have to set HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB, even though I have no intention of building LLVM. I then get to set LIBCXX_HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB too, because reasons. >> This is bad. I’m curious why you need to set those ever. Have you diagnosed this? For you to need to set that it means the host toolchain isn’t properly passing the CMake checks. > It looks like I don't need to set these anymore, but the comment that I left mys...

Moving to llvm-dev (I think this has gone a bit further than a patch review discussion) In hindsight I probably should have explained more of my thinking on this with the patch, or done an RFC on llvm-dev to start with. I’l do that now, and answer the questions along the way. I sent a separate email discussing Justin’s patch review feedback. In the build system today there is no strong