similar to: [compiler-rt] r329776 - [XRay][compiler-rt] Fix osx-based builds

Hi Dean, I have fixed the build failure in r329832. In general, do you think it would be possible to perform the task using higher-level functions available from AddCompilerRT.cmake? They were written exactly to avoid such errors. Regards, George > On Apr 11, 2018, at 10:50 AM, George Karpenkov <ekarpenkov at apple.com> wrote: > > Hi Dean, > > For me the build is still

On Thu, 2019-01-24 at 19:58 +0100, Dimitry Andric via Release-testers wrote: > On 24 Jan 2019, at 01:49, Hans Wennborg via Release-testers <release-testers at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > 8.0.0-rc1 was just tagged (from the branch at r351980). > > > > It took a little longer than planned, but it's looking good. > > > > Please run the test

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

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

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

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.

Well, I updated to cmake 2.8.12.2 but the result of changing that COMPILE_FLAGS to COMPILE_OPTIONS is that quotes are applied incorrectly: quotes are added surrounding the entire set of flags rather than around each individual item in the list. Obviously the build doesn't work (with the compiler looking for files named " -m64 ... ") but checking the relevant build command in

'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>

> 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

> 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

With reference to the following thread: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-January/094100.html I am having the same issue. First I did a git pull of all the relevant directories and then doing a cmake: cmake -DLLVM_ENABLE_DOXYGEN=ON -DLLVM_ENABLE_WERROR=OFF -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD="X86" ../llvm and followed by make: [ 22%] Built target LLVMVectorize [ 25%] Built target

On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 06:20:37PM +0100, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Jack, this occurs because you compiled LLVM with clang (right?) and > dragonegg is compiled with the same flags used to compile LLVM (it is > an llvm-config bug in my opinion that llvm-config output includes these > kinds of optional flags). Duncan, Yes. I believe both fink and MacPorts now default to the clang

Hi, The test-suite expects to be built standalone but it looks like you have it in the same tree as LLVM. You'll need to remove it. From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Peter Teoh via llvm-dev Sent: 28 February 2016 14:31 To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] [3.8 Release] We have branched With reference to the following thread:

I think we've just forgotten to update that part of the instructions. Having the test-suite at projects/test-suite was harmless to the old autoconf and LLVM 3.7.x's cmake builds because it didn't actually cause the test-suite to be built. The CMakeLists.txt that have been added to the test-suite now cause it to be built by LLVM's build system which introduces the build failure. We

Hi Jack, can you please open a bug report asking that llvm-config only provide the minimum set of flags needed to compile code that interfaces with LLVM, rather than (as now) all kinds of unneeded flags such as -g and warnings. Thanks, Duncan. On 07/12/12 18:55, Jack Howarth wrote: > On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 06:20:37PM +0100, Duncan Sands wrote: >> Hi Jack, this occurs because you

Dear LLVM developers, Our team has developed an LLVM-based protection mechanism that (i) prevents control-flow hijack attacks enabled by memory corruption errors and (ii) has very low performance overhead. We would like to contribute the implementation to LLVM. We presented this work at the OSDI 2014 conference, at several software companies, and several US universities. We received positive