similar to: difference with autotools, cmake and ninja building methods

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

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,

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(

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:

Why are there two ways to compile LLVM? make and cmake! What's the difference of those two ways? - mudongliang

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>

2015-09-01 11:38 GMT+08:00 John Criswell <jtcriswel at gmail.com>: > On 8/31/15 10:43 PM, 慕冬亮 via llvm-dev wrote: > > 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. > >

First you should learn how to write a pass and then a MachineFunctionPass. >From LLVM website, you can refer to http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html And for outside pass, you can refer to http://adriansampson.net/blog/llvm.html It's a great article. And the author put the source code on Github <https://github.com/sampsyo/llvm-pass-skeleton>. 2016-03-01 14:36 GMT+08:00

Hi, Here is a proposal for adding CMake in addition of Autotools. See the attached patch for changes or the pull request here: https://github.com/xiph/opus/pull/100 The CMake scripts are parsing the filelist from Autotools, so only one file list needs to be maintained. With this change the checked in Visual Studio solution can be removed and no longer need to be maintained and updated when

Hi, I was trying Ninja to build the LLVM sources. I am using cmake version 2.8.8, latest ninja from git and latest LLVM from git. Here's what I tried: $ cmake -G Ninja -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=... /path/to/src $ ninja $ ninja install The installation aborted with the message below: CMake Error at utils/TableGen/cmake_install.cmake:36 (FILE): file INSTALL cannot

Just posted this fix on ninja's github page, but figured I'd share it with a larger audience. Every time I run cmake && ninja in a new build directory, ninja will rerun cmake because the entry for build.ninja in .ninja_log is older than the timestamp on CMakeCache.txt, even if the timestamps on the actual file isn't older. The following patch fixes the problem, i.e.,

Hi, Thanks for the quick feedback I have changed the name to avoid conflict. Attached is the updated patch. //Marcus ________________________________ From: Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin at jmvalin.ca> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 00:07 To: Marcus Asteborg; opus at xiph.org Subject: Re: [opus] CMake support for Opus proposal (in addition to Autotools) Hi Marcus, There seems to be a conflict

For every level of translation [in terms of "human readable -> machine code translation", not someone translating a literary work from one language to another - although often some subtle details are lost here too], a little bit of the semantic meaning is lost. This means that you can almost never completely reconstruct the code in original form from the machine-code, or the C-code

Hi llvm-dev, Does anybody know why we're not using the `add_test` feature in CMake [0] for unit tests? In particular, compiler-rt (sanitizers and xray) has a number of unit tests which could really just be built as normal binaries and invoked appropriately. If we're avoiding ctest [1], then for the unit tests in compiler-rt I'd like to see whether just using normal binaries can make

Hello, I've spent some time hacking up the Debian packaging to use CMake instead of autotools; it's still a work in progress, but it works. It's a bit of a mess, though, primarily because there are differences in the output of the CMake and autotools builds. On my Ubuntu machine, the dependencies for clang-3.6 look like this: $ ldd /usr/bin/clang-3.6 linux-vdso.so.1 =>

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

This is useful for developer who uses multicore builder. https://cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.9/release/3.9.html#other-changes - The Ninja <https://cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.9/generator/Ninja.html#generator:Ninja> generator has loosened the dependencies of object compilation. Object compilation now depends only on custom targets and custom commands associated with libraries on

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 1:16 AM Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > This is great news! Do we know who contributed the changes to cut the > extra library dependencies? > > Do you think we should remove ENABLE_OBJLIB to simplify our CMake files in > the near future? It seems to me that anyone who cares about highly parallel > build throughput can upgrade CMake to get

Hi all, A discussion was being carried on llvmcommits about the extra time for cleaning and re-building objects that didn't need to be built on buildbots. Since they just update the repository, builds could be a lot faster if we let the objects in place. Even faster if we used Ninja with CMake. Is there a crucial reason why we're still using autoconf for all builds? Some of us