similar to: Statically linking against libc++

I just built a stage-1 compiler from the 3.9 release bits and built the lldb from head sources which worked fine. Let me try again using 3.9 build compiler to build 3.9 bits. Teresa On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016, 2:38 PM Carsten Mattner <carstenmattner at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On

Now that autoconf is going away soon, I figured I'd try building using CMake. I checked out llvm, cfe and lldb from the SVN server, and followed the basic build instructions. cmake -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=OFF -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/tools/llvm/svn_head -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD="X86;CppBackend" -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DLLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS=ON ../llvm Everything worked well, and in

Thanks - I'll try this tonight. Assuming it works, should these variables be added to the docs at http://llvm.org/docs/CMake.html ? On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:26 PM, Andrew Wilkins <axwalk at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 at 11:02 David Jones via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Now that autoconf is going away soon, I

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > Sure, I will try this and let you know. Unfortunately, though, I > have another big work commitment that is going to eat up most of my > time through Thu, although I may be able to find some time to try > it. No worries, if I get around it before you do, I will :). > I think so - what is

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > Note that -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=OFF is not a special settings, > this is the default. Is there a so=NEVER setting?

Hi, I am a newbie in LLVM. I am very impressed with this forum and appreciate your help and time. I am trying to include llvm IR parser in my codebase, the way I wanna do is generate llvm's shared object (.so) file and use it in my project. So far I haven't been able to generate correct .so's. When I build a debug build with gmake (have llvm and clang in my sandbox), I get the

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:37 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: Just in case it's important, I'm using Arch Linux (and most Linux distros these days) CFLAGS/CPPFLAGS/LDFLAGS, which are as follows: $ grep FLAGS /etc/makepkg.conf CPPFLAGS="-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2" CFLAGS="-march=x86-64 -mtune=generic -O2 -pipe -fstack-protector-strong"

Hello, I'm trying to create a pure LLVM toolchain (that will not depend on GNU and produce GNU-free code too) on a musl based distribution. For now, I use gcc to bootstrap and build all LLVM components. I do it individually because I was running out of space and memory trying to build all using LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS. Also, I don't want to create a all-in-one package. Then, once

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 8:42 AM, C Bergström <cbergstrom at pathscale.com> wrote: > -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=OFF should be exactly that, but as I think > someone else indicated there's a bit of work for it to actually be > what it advertises to be. Mehdi wrote it's correct for all of the listed dynlibs to be installed. > This could get gray when you consider that you really

It was just brought to my attention that the RPATH configuration isn't uniform among the libraries produced by the release. Some use $ORIGIN../lib/ and others have none. Is this by design? It seems like it might be ideal for all of them to be configured the same way. If that makes sense I'll create a corresponding feature request. $ for f in

Isn't libc++.so dependent on libc++abi.so? On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Jonas Hahnfeld <hahnjo at hahnjo.de> wrote: > From what I can see all of the libraries without RPATH are runtime > libraries that are used by binaries compiled with Clang. I think they don't > have a dependency on other libraries in that directory, so what would be > the advantage of having

From what I can see all of the libraries without RPATH are runtime libraries that are used by binaries compiled with Clang. I think they don't have a dependency on other libraries in that directory, so what would be the advantage of having RPATH set on them? Regards, Jonas Am 2018-03-05 17:23, schrieb Brian Cain via llvm-dev: > It was just brought to my attention that the RPATH

libc++.so should be a linker script that automatically pulls in libc++abi (see "Failed to read file header" in your output). And IIRC libc++abi is only one possible implementation that may be used by libc++, but I'm no expert here... Am 2018-03-05 17:33, schrieb Brian Cain: > Isn't libc++.so dependent on libc++abi.so? > > On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Jonas

I've been unsuccessfully trying tell g++ or clang++ to use libc++(abi) when building a C++ source file (single file for test purposes) when the host cc and c++ are all configured to use glibc and libstdc++. My goal is to statically links musl libc and libc++(abi) and create binaries for Linux that just work anywhere. Naturally, I'm not building a .so or depending on dynamic libs. My last

On 5 Jun 2017, at 15:17, Jonathan Roelofs via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 6/5/17 5:17 AM, Dmitry Golovin via llvm-dev wrote: >> I'm trying to build LLVM, Clang, LLD, compiler-rt, libc++, libc++abi and libunwind with musl-based toolchain. >> >> The configuration is the following: >> >> LIBCXX_HAS_MUSL_LIBC=ON >>

Hello there, I'm building a Linux distribution based on musl and LLVM as default toolchain (including lld/libc++/libc++abi/libunwind rather than GNU). For most of the time this works pretty well. However I'm having troubles with few packages, webkit for instance fails because of max_align_t being redeclared in musl's stddef.h I see that stddef.h is provided by both musl and in the

Hi, I'm currently working on one of my team's project to build LLVM full clang toolchain (Clang, libcxx, libcxxabi) on a CentOS machine. Previously we compiled our codebase with llvm-toolset-7/clang++, which by default takes stdlibc++ to compile and link. And now we'd like to switch to use LLVM clang with libc++. I have built libc++ and libc++abi from source (5.0.1 release) and set

Uploaded ubuntu, SLES11, SLES12 binaries. 4907dbd37f4e5265a2f1252d9d7b5e5b0a9c0ec1 clang+llvm-6.0.0-x86_64-linux-gnu-ubuntu-14.04.tar.xz 360b26fcd9eafe5ca9c4baa89c38339bc587c094 clang+llvm-6.0.0-x86_64-linux-sles11.3.tar.xz ce525cf949ef86409bc3f4f492035225989eecfd clang+llvm-6.0.0-x86_64-linux-sles12.2.tar.xz On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 6:17 AM, Hans Wennborg via Release-testers < release-testers

I'm trying to build LLVM, Clang, LLD, compiler-rt, libc++, libc++abi and libunwind with musl-based toolchain. The configuration is the following: LIBCXX_HAS_MUSL_LIBC=ON LIBCXX_HAS_GCC_S_LIB=OFF CLANG_DEFAULT_CXX_STDLIB=libc++ CLANG_DEFAULT_LINKER=lld CLANG_DEFAULT_RTLIB=compiler-rt LLVM_DEFAULT_TARGET_TRIPLE=x86_64-pc-linux-musl LLVM_TARGET_ARCH=x86_64

On 6 Jun 2017, at 21:41, Dmitry Golovin <dima at golovin.in> wrote: > > Neither is the case. The system that I want to build with this toolchain is Linux-based, but not GNUish. I would like to use musl instead of glibc and libc++ instead of libstdc++, only use binutils provided by LLVM. I think that in that case I will link libc++abi and libunwind to libc++ statically, so I will not