similar to: LLVM compiling

2015-08-29 14:45 GMT+08:00 Martell Malone <martellmalone at gmail.com>: > Why are there two ways to compile LLVM? >> make and cmake! >> What's the difference of those two ways? > > > make and cmake are used together not separately. > cmake is a high level generator that creates a makefile for make > > I compile llvm according to this website(

When I see one book about llvm and choose the building method between autotools, cmake, and ninja building methods, I was confused. Is there any link about this content? Thanks for reply. -- My best regards to you. No System Is Safe! mudongliang

2015-11-30 12:58 GMT+08:00 Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com>: > The autotools build system is officially deprecated and will be removed in a > future release. > > CMake is the recommended configuration system, but it is only a > configuration system. It generates build files for multiple different build > systems. One of the most popular build systems is Ninja. You cannot

Ask a simple question : I svn checkout compiler-rt in llvm/project. And I compile llvm through cmake. How can I make for all those testing files? make test? - mudongliang 2015-09-02 0:58 GMT+08:00 Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com>: > Take a look at > > clang.llvm.org/docs/ControlFlowIntegrityDesign.html > clang.llvm.org/docs/ControlFlowIntegrity.html > > And the

I want to create an experiment to show the effectiveness of cfi : For example , I first need a program with vulnerability so that we can hijack its control flow; then I enforce cfi of llvm and we can't hijack its control flow. Do you have any advice for me? - mudongliang -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

2015-12-01 1:20 GMT+08:00 Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com>: > > On Nov 29, 2015, at 9:09 PM, 慕冬亮 <mudongliangabcd at gmail.com> wrote: > > 2015-11-30 12:58 GMT+08:00 Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com>: > > The autotools build system is officially deprecated and will be removed in a > future release. > > CMake is the recommended configuration system,

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Martell Malone <martellmalone at gmail.com> wrote: > Just as a point for building the builtins shouldn't we just need llvm-ar ? Thanks for pointing this out and I hope llvm-ar is up to the task. Even if targets must still port binutils, each step toward LLVM self-reliance is a step in the right direction. Without getting too far ahead of ourselves,

> > Cool. This then makes your other point about requiring LLVM tools less of > an issue because the out-of-tree builds can use whatever tools you choose. > We just need to make the builtins work so that you don’t need them already > built. With that in mind for an intiial solution before you get to stripping out the cmake stuff so that it can do an out of tree bootstrap. I have

Hi everyone, TL;DR I plan to do subj unless anyone objects. Autotools support for building sanitizers was never complete, is a proper subset of CMake capabilities, and the gap between the features of CMake build and autotools is quickly increasing: 1) OS: autotools support Linux, Mac OS X and Android; CMake also supports FreeBSD and Windows. 2) Architectures: autotools support i386 and x86_64,

Unfortunately, we do rely on the Autotools to build for darwin. The lack of proper testing is very unfortunate. In the future, we will either drop the dependency on Makefile/autoconf build or add the support for sanitizer testing. Anna. > On Feb 17, 2015, at 10:54 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > +1 (in case you still need mine) > > On Thu, Feb 12,

The CrossCompile module is in a perpetual state of "when I get a chance...", and desperately needs some cleanup. The problem you are hitting is caused by setting CMAKE_SYSTEM_NAME. When you set that CMake sets a variable CMAKE_CROSS_COMPILING. That variable should only be set when your host OS doesn't match your target OS. Since LLVM needs to build host-capable tools there is some

> > I will not be stripping out any of the existing CMake. If we go down this > path what I’m going to do is refactor the CMake to produce to logically > separated projects so that the builtins can be built with or without the > runtime libraries. It will all still be CMake-based. Sorry. s/stripping/seperating/g I was still thinking about the stripping of the IOS build from the OSX

> On Feb 17, 2015, at 4:00 PM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Anna Zaks <ganna at apple.com <mailto:ganna at apple.com>> wrote: > Unfortunately, we do rely on the Autotools to build for darwin. > > The lack of proper testing is very unfortunate. In the future, we will either drop the dependency on

On 18/02/2015 23:29, Alexey Samsonov wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Anna Zaks <ganna at apple.com <mailto:ganna at apple.com>> wrote: > > >> On Feb 17, 2015, at 4:00 PM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com <mailto:vonosmas at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Anna Zaks <ganna at

Right that I had completely missed, I have added the files and verified that it builds with CMake from the tar on Linux (out of the git repo) I am parsing the package_version file from the tarball if it exists so it should maintain the version info. //Marcus ________________________________ From: Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin at jmvalin.ca> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 11:38 To: Marcus

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 27 June 2016 at 07:00, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek at gmail.com> wrote: >> Building with CMake sets the version-string correct whereas using >> autotools as build-system does not. > > Hi Sedat, > > This was reported earlier and it's unfortunate, but we don't support

Hi All, Will tinc use cmake in the future? auto tools is really hard to port to other platform like windows phone. Tks.

Hello, thank you for the thoughts. > Have you seen the docs for CMake3.0 [1] (see cmake-buildsystem > especially)? They certainly aren't perfect but they are considerably > better than what was there before. Okay, the documentation has come a long way since 3.0 although it still needs a bit of polish. > I wouldn't say that much "important functionality is plain

I am an actual end user of LLVM who builds it from source and not a developer of it so I think I have an important perspective that is not represented here. Also I am pretty sure the llvmdev mailing is heavily biased and might not reach actual end users of LLVM. I use the Autotools build system for a number of reasons. If compromises or reasonable workarounds could be found I would be okay with

I want to transform elf binary to llvm IR, and do some instrumentation based on llvm. Is there any tool which can do the transformation? Thanks in advance. - mudongliang -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150717/abee5f23/attachment.html>