similar to: [LLVMdev] LLD developers: is anyone using the standalone CMake build for LLD?

Hi, here is a patch for fixing the libdir suffix issue in llvm-config on CMake builds (if using -DLLVM_LIBDIR_SUFFIX=32/64). It works successfully on my openSUSE i586 (/usr/lib/) and x86_64 (/usr/lib64/) systems. Please CC me on further discussion. Thanks. Johannes -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name:

How do you feel about adding LLD to the LLVM repo? Could it follow the same path as the integrated assembler? That is, Clang keeps it off by default for each architecture until it's ready for prime time. -Greg On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote:

I'm hoping to revive the LLD standalone CMake build. I'm new to this build but it looks like it borrowed code from an old version of compiler-rt, which I did some work on last year. Like compiler-rt, I'd like to get the LLD build up running with only CMAKE_PREFIX_PATH instead of defining custom variables like LLD_PATH_TO_LLVM_BUILD and LLD_PATH_TO_LLVM_SOURCE. Any objection to that?

On 8 January 2015 at 19:46, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> How do you feel about adding LLD to the LLVM repo? Could it follow >> the same path as the integrated assembler? That is, Clang keeps it >> off by default for each architecture until

Rather than using sed, it would be better to change the .in to use @...@ variables to expand the libdir suffix along with the other variables expanded when going from llvm-config.in to llvm-config. On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 1:32 AM, Johannes Obermayr <johannesobermayr at gmx.de>wrote: > Hi, > > here is a patch for fixing the libdir suffix issue in llvm-config on CMake > builds

I fixed the immediate problem - please let me know when you are going to break my build so I can switch to maintaining it locally. thanks Iain ] On 13 Mar 2015, at 17:04, Rui Ueyama wrote: > Looks like most developers prefer Makefile removal, and there's no push-back. Let's go ahead and remove them. I'll send a patch. > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Iain Sandoe <iain

I wanted to go through and map out the layering of LLD's libraries today and found that it's essentially impossible. I think some serious cleanup is needed here. Let's start with the purely link-level dependencies encoded in the CMake build: Curently the Core library depends on the ReaderWriter/Native library, which links against the ReaderWriter library, which links against the Core

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > On Jan 19, 2015, at 6:33 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> > wrote: > > > I wanted to go through and map out the layering of LLD's libraries today > and found that it's essentially impossible. I think some serious cleanup is > needed here. > > > >

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> > wrote: > >> >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: >> >>> On Jan 19, 2015, at 6:33 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> >>>

Hi Chris, On 14 Mar 2015, at 21:42, Chris Bieneman wrote: > Just out of curiosity. The community generally seems to be moving away from autoconf toward CMake. Is there a reason why you need the autoconf build bad enough to support it out-of-tree? The reasons a short-term and boring engineering/project-related, rather than ideological. We all agree that one well-maintained build system is

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 3:18 PM Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:18 AM Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Arseny Kapoulkine via llvm-dev < >>>

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

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 4:05 PM Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > By organizing it as a library, I'm expecting something coarse. I don't > expect to reorganize the linker itself as a collection of small libraries, > but make the entire linker available as a library, so that you can link > stuff in-process. More specifically, I expect that the library would >

On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 5 October 2014 07:19, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote: > > So with that in mind, I would like to ask, would it be possible to > consider > > switching to LLVM style for lld? > > We don't usually enforce code styles on side projects because it >

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > The lld conventions for ivars is a leading underscore followed by a > lowercase letter. The reserved identifiers are a leading underscore > followed by an uppercase letter. There is no conflict. > And I didn't say that there was. They are *close*. Too close. People make mistakes and get it wrong.

This time with the correct mailing list address... See below... On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > Why? > > 1) We're moving away from autoconf already today. We're hoping to drop it > completely soon. > 2) It doesn't work today and no one is complaining. > 3) It hasn't worked for weeks and no one has

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > >> > On Oct 8, 2014, at 1:55 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> >> wrote: >> > >> > On 8 October 2014 05:25, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:18 AM Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Arseny Kapoulkine via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> In the process of migrating from old lld ELF linker to new (previously >> ELF2) I noticed the interface lost several important features (ordered by >>

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 6:07 PM, Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 4:05 PM Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: >> >>> By organizing it as a library, I'm expecting something coarse. I don't >>>

I have fixed the issue locally, but been out of the office - can apply the fix - or just maintain the makefiles locally if no-one else really wants them, fine with whatever the community decision is. Iain On 11 Mar 2015, at 22:11, Rui Ueyama wrote: > I'd agree, but the Makefiles were added just 9 months ago. I don't know if there's a real need of any kind. Added Iain who added