similar to: [RFC] [CMake] Removing support for LLVM_TOOL_<PROJECT> CMake cache variables

On 06/18/2020 11:27 AM, Steven Wu via llvm-dev wrote: > I like the proposal but I would like to go even further. If we are going to create a top level CMake file, we should just go ahead and eliminate all the standalone build configuration. The standalone build should just be `cmake <monorepo-root> -DLLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS=standalone-project ...`. That means less build configuration to

Hi folks, Building any LLVM project currently requires invoking CMake inside <monorepo-root>/llvm, while setting the projects to enable in the LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS variable. This has the downside that CMake processing for the LLVM subproject happens even when one doesn't really need or want it. It's also not great from a build hygiene perspective, as LLVM globally sets some flags

Thanks Shoaib for a great summary. To summarize this as an answer to Louis' questions: 1. What is a "Standalone build"? What does it enable that a normal monorepo build can't? This means building any of the runtimes separately, where the runtime's CMakeLists.txt (e.g. path/to/my/llvm-project/libcxx/CMakeLists.txt) is the top-level one. The reason for using this variant is

Folks, I'm at a loss trying to add Compiler-RT to an LLVM build, even after checking out the instructions at http://compiler-rt.llvm.org, so I'd appreciate your help. I've tried adding the CMake options LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS, LLVM_BUILD_EXTERNAL_COMPILER_RT, LLVM_EXTERNAL_COMPILER_RT_SOURCE_DIR, CLANG_DEFAULT_RTLIB. All to no avail. FWIW, I'm building for the targets

Speaking on how to locate/enable projects (like clang/lldb) - even with the monorepo, I'm still enabling clang/lldb by symlinking them into llvm/tools, for one specific reason: CMake and relative paths. As long as all the source that is being built is below the toplevel CMake directory, and the build directory itself is within the toplevel CMake project directory, CMake uses relative

Hi, The minimum CMake version currently advertised for libc++ and libc++abi is currently 3.4.3. I think the oldest version of CMake actually being tested on any builder is 3.7.0, so advertising 3.4.3 is somewhat of a lie (I'm pretty sure we're using features that require a more recent version already). However, we do need to bump it to 3.8.0 at least because CMake 3.7 doesn't know

[Cross-post to llvm-dev to make sure everybody relevant sees this] Hi, I'm currently trying to simplify the libc++/libc++abi/libunwind build systems and testing setup. In doing so, I am encountering issues related to "unusual" ways of building them. By unusual, I just mean "not the usual monorepo build with LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS". I would like to pin down what the set of

On 03/24/2020 09:00 PM, Petr Hosek via llvm-dev wrote: > In October, there was a discussion about updating CMake to 3.15: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-October/136295.html. No decision was made, but maybe we should revisit that proposal? If we're going to require a newer version of CMake for some subprojects, I'd prefer to bump the minimum CMake version for all of LLVM.

Judging by this path: needed by 'tools/lld/Common/VCSVersion.inc' It looks to me like this is **not** a monorepo layout (if it were, lld would not appear in the tools directory). Therefore the LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS=lld is not even doing anything. I don't know how to build without a monorepo these days, and I also don't know what the most recent guidance setting up a monorepo is,

Sorry for the delay in writing this up and sending it out, but I wanted to recap the discussion from the roundtable on October 23rd. The roundtable ran for almost two hours and we discussed at most of the main points in my RFC. Thank you everyone who participated and contributed to the discussion! TL;DR: We should move to CMake 3.15 (RFC incoming). We should make `all` really `all`. We should

On 03/25/2020 06:20 AM, Louis Dionne wrote: > > >> On Mar 25, 2020, at 00:47, Tom Stellard <tstellar at redhat.com> wrote: >> >> On 03/24/2020 09:00 PM, Petr Hosek via llvm-dev wrote: >>> In October, there was a discussion about updating CMake to 3.15: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-October/136295.html. No decision was made, but maybe we

> On Jul 29, 2016, at 8:53 AM, Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Even then, are we seriously ignoring the fact that even if you did clone > > > the whole repository including everything, that you can still build just > > > the libc++ and sanitiser runtimes if you wanted to? > > > > Is it that easy to build a

> The only thing a monorepo gets you that strictly isn’t possible without > it is the ability to commit to multiple projects in a single commit. > Personally I don’t think that is a big enough justification, but that is > my opinion, not a fact. Okay, I just bumped into r277008, in which commits to llvm, clang, and clang-tools-extra all have the same SVN revision number. I don't

> And if it is, then the "only thing a monorepo gets you" isn't something that you need a monorepo to get. This is an *extremely important* point to understand, so let me try to be really clear about the current state of the world and the state of the world under the two "move to git" proposals. Today, all commits ultimately end up in SVN. Our SVN is a effectively a

On 03/20/2017 03:33 PM, Jonathan Roelofs wrote: > On 3/20/17 1:47 PM, Evandro Menezes via llvm-dev wrote: >> Folks, >> >> I'm at a loss trying to add Compiler-RT to an LLVM build, even after >> checking out the instructions at http://compiler-rt.llvm.org, so I'd >> appreciate your help. >> >> I've tried adding the CMake options

Hi, all. I feel like we've strayed pretty far from the question originally posed in this thread. One of the pieces of feedback I got before I started this thread was that many people felt that, the last time the question of multiple repos vs. monorepo was discussed, it was interspersed with other topics, making it difficult for some people to weigh in appropriately (or even to be aware that

By the way, I've been using the existing read-only monorepo [1] for a few days now. The intent is to commit via the script I put together [2], although I haven't committed anything other than a testing commit [3]. All I can say is, *wow* is it nice. I hid everything I don't care about using a sparse checkout [4]. Many of my tools (e.g. ctrl-p [5] [6], ycm [7]) suddenly work better

Well shoot, you beat me to it. :) I've been working on a similar tool but it's not ready yet. Looking forward to trying yours! -David James Y Knight via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > I'm about to post exactly this tool -- I've been testing it on the > CHERI forks of llvm/clang/lld (lots of history and merges and stuff

[ I am initially copying only a few lists since they seem like the most impacted projects and I didn't want to spam all the mailing lists. Please let me know if other lists should be included. ] I submitted D68230 for review but this is not about that patch per se. The patch allows update_cc_test_checks.py to process tests that should check target asm rather than LLVM IR. We use this

On 04/24/2020 03:24 AM, Sam McCall wrote: > clangd's experience using github issues to track bugs (in a separate repo) has been very positive, and I'm glad you're pushing on this! > > Part of this has been that our issue tracker has been scoped to our subproject only, which is a scope that the tool works well for (on the user and developer side). > As such I don't