similar to: CMake executable dependency woes

We had this discussion a few months ago and it petered out, and it’s recently been revived in the context of upgrading the CMake version specifically for libc++ (at which point people suggested upgrading the CMake version used by all of LLVM), so let’s try to move this forward. Our current required minimum version is CMake 3.4.3, which was released on January 25th 2016. It’s interesting to note

Hi all, I want to use the LLVM_DISTRIBUTION_COMPONENTS support to create an installed toolchain image (via the install-distribution target). I'd also like the installed binaries to be stripped. If you're invoking a cmake install script directly, you can pass -DCMAKE_INSTALL_DO_STRIP=1 to cmake to request stripping. The install-* targets set up by LLVM's build system don't seem to

Assuming this is a one-time version bump, this seems reasonable to me. Perhaps this goes without saying, but the warning for point 1 should only happen if you don’t have CMake >= 3.13.4 installed. It sounded to me from your original message that you have an urgent need to upgrade to 3.8. Were you planning on going ahead with that right away? From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at

I’m in favor of all this. Thanks for volunteering! I’m happy to help out in whatever way. Some things it might be worth figuring out for future upgrades: * If we want to limit ourselves to CMake versions supported by LTS releases of distros, which distros should we consider, and how far back should we go (i.e. is it just the latest LTS or the last two LTS versions)? * For platforms like Ubuntu

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 11:48 PM Nikita Popov via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 9:07 PM Shoaib Meenai via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> We had this discussion a few months ago and it petered out, and it’s recently been revived in the context of upgrading the CMake version specifically for libc++ (at which

Ubuntu 20.04 LTS will be released soon, and I believe it’ll have CMake 3.16.3, so that increases the LTS lower bound significantly. I strongly disagree with the sentiment that the build system already works so there’s no urgent need to improve it. I believe we should treat the build system like code, and the same ideas around refactoring apply. Our build system is a huge thorny mess; there’s tons

Every additional dependency that we force the user to manually install (either by building from source, or adding some new PPA to their ubuntu system), raises the barrier to entry that much higher. Just because we may require the user to manually install some newer compiler on their system doesn’t mean that we should also require them to install some newer CMake than what’s on their system.

'Supported' means that it comes from the packages available from the distribution that can be seen via this page. https://packages.ubuntu.com/ These packages have been processed by the Ubuntu community to obtain a reliability expectation that would not apply, for example, to a PPA. The difference between installing or building Clang and LLVM from original sources as against

I think it does make a difference how many things we ask new developers to do to get up and running - because we've asked them to do one thing doesn't mean it's low-cost to ask them to do another thing. On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 11:20 AM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 9:16 AM Chris Tetreault <ctetreau at

> You're saying "doesn’t mean that we should" while I've been saying in this situation that "we can", there is quite a difference here I believe. Technically “we can” do anything we want. We can always require that the project be built with the current release candidate of CMake. That doesn’t mean that we should. From: Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com>

Hi, On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Dan Liew <dan at su-root.co.uk> wrote: > On 16 January 2016 at 20:21, Ismail Donmez <ismail at i10z.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 9:33 PM, Dan Liew <dan at su-root.co.uk> wrote: >>>> I am trying to enable this on openSUSE but it seems to break >>>> standalone lldb (note that we don't ship static

I was a bit confused with what the difference was between the old target_link_libraries(foo bar) and the new target_link_libraries(foo INTERFACE|PRIVATE|PUBLIC bar) To try to find out, I decided to look at the generated build.ninja. The difference that shows up is far fewer order only dependencies. For example build lib/TableGen/CMakeFiles/LLVMTableGen.dir/Error.cpp.o: CXX_COMPILER

> On Apr 7, 2020, at 22:16, Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 11:27 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com <mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com>> wrote: > I think it does make a difference how many things we ask new developers to do to get up and running - because we've asked them to do one thing

Adding Juergen to the thread. On Fri, Mar 15, 2019, 12:20 PM Shoaib Meenai via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Ping. > > > > Would anyone be opposed to me trying to revive the in-tree Mach-O TAPI > code? > > > > Thanks, > > Shoaib > > > > *From: *Shoaib Meenai <smeenai at fb.com> > *Date: *Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at

Hi, I've been working on a set of patches to statically link polly in the LLVM tools. There remains an error I can't seem to solve when linking llvm-lto (all other tools luckily get linked correctly): it insists adding libLLVMipo.a after libLLVMPolly.a on the link command, resulting in an error of the form: PassManagerBuilder.cpp:(.text+0x499): undefined reference to

Hi all, It looks like Juergen landed the TextAPI libraries for Mach-O in https://reviews.llvm.org/D53945, and also had several follow-ups, but then it was deleted entirely by r347874. I'm not sure if the entire deletion was intentional, since the commit message only mentions reverting a certain series of patches; CC Hans. In any case, I'm wondering if there are plans to revive it, since

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Sebastian Pop <spop at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Is there a reason to not use the cmake add_dependencies to establish the link > order of the LLVM libs instead of using the LLVMBuild.txt info? Have you tried `target_link_libraries`? The new CMake book has an example showing one static lib depending on another (page 25): `target_link_libraries(foo

> On Apr 2, 2020, at 10:19, Louis Dionne via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Okay, so we've had some discussion on this thread, and although some people (including me) would like a more aggressive policy, I believe the following will not get any objection (based on the thread). On April 23rd 2020, Ubuntu 20.04 LTS will ship with CMake 3.16.x. This will make the

https://reviews.llvm.org/rL353906 introduced (presumably accidentally) the "b" top-level directory to the monorepo. The files should be moved to their proper location, but I'm also wondering if there's any way to prevent accidental top-level additions like this. Thanks, Shoaib -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Actually, sorry, my fix was for the case where you had other arguments beginning with @ that weren't response files, whereas yours has actual response files, so my patch won't help there. CCing Reid and Hans, who did a bunch of the implementation in this area. From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Shoaib Meenai via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at