similar to: Bumping the CMake requirement for libc++ and libc++abi

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.

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

[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 Mar 25, 2020, at 13:07, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 5:01 PM Tom Stellard via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > On 03/25/2020 06:20 AM, Louis Dionne wrote: > > > > > >> On Mar 25, 2020, at 00:47, Tom Stellard <tstellar at redhat.com

> On Mar 25, 2020, at 19:42, Chris Tetreault <ctetreau at quicinc.com> wrote: > > I would like to just chime in and say that I’m fairly strongly opposed to any blanket version increases without justification. Having a low version requirement is a feature. It means that more people can build the codebase. We should increase the minimum CMake version requirement only if we need to do

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

I understand organization restrictions and old operating systems (I use CentOS 7 myself), but I’ll note that the only requirement for running a new CMake is the ability to download and untar a tarball; in particular, you don’t require sudo. (I understand that there may be restrictions around running arbitrary executables downloaded from the internet, which of course make sense, but I wanted 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

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 all, I'm trying to add builders to zorg for libc++ and libc++abi. I think I have the builder right, but I have a few questions. First, how do I know which build slaves to use? Is it okay to just pick a few, is there some policy defining which are fair game, or do I need to add a new one? Second, is there a simple way to test the builder and config before I commit it? Here's my first

[Sorry about the crosspost. Since this is a clang build question but the build is invoked from the top-level LLVM directory I'm not sure where the question should go.] I've got a clang build against libstdc++ on Linux but I would really like one built against libc++/libc++abi. In other words I'd like to rebuild clang/llvm with clang using libc++ and libc++abi on Linux. I looked at

On 04/08/2014 16:20, Dmitri Gribenko wrote: > On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Dan Liew <dan at su-root.co.uk> wrote: >>>> Second, is there a simple way to test the builder and config before I >>>> commit >>>> it? >>> >>> I am afraid not. >>> >> >> But there is a ugly (and certainly not simple) way to partially test

If your cut-n-paste is accurate, you seem to be missing a closing quote for CMAKE_CXX_LINK_FLAGS. hth... don On Jul 8, 2015 2:22 AM, "David A. Greene" <greened at obbligato.org> wrote: > greened at obbligato.org (David A. Greene) writes: > > > I looked at the instructions on the libc++ page and for Linux it > > recommends building with -stdlib=libc++ -lc++abi.

I just landed these patches: commit c55051eea5d3cd57abfd9727f519b670517704d9 Author: Louis Dionne <ldionne at apple.com> Date: Thu Jun 25 12:02:43 2020 -0400 [libunwind] Allow specifying custom Lit config files This is the libunwind counterpart of 0c66af970c80. commit 33c9c10d183371edc95fa936705bef56f55ab611 Author: Louis Dionne <ldionne at

FWIW, I’d like for us to come to an agreement before the branch for LLVM 7.0 is cut. How do others feel about this? Am I wrong when I claim that shipping an ABI-unstable feature in the std:: namespace is a deviation from normal practice? Am I overcautious when I say it’s asking for trouble? Eric, I know you’re busy and may not have time to do the work so I’m totally willing to chime in, but I’d

Why did you want the symbols moved out of libc++experimental, and for the header to be moved from <experimental/filesystem> to <filesystem>? It certainly seems like it'd be safer and clearer to move them back to the old locations, but it's not clear to me if that'd be trading off something else of value. Was there some other greater purpose served by the change in

> On Aug 10, 2018, at 13:28, Marshall Clow via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 9:20 PM, Eric Fiselier via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > Hi All, > > I recently committed <filesystem> to trunk. I wanted to bring attention to some quirks it currently has.

Hi, My current understanding of the problem (based on https://reviews.llvm.org/D49774) is that we have a type, file_time_type, which is part of the ABI and is currently defined as std::chrono::time_point<_FileSystemClock>, where _FileSystemClock is an internal type represented using a __int128_t. However, C++20 will add a type called file_clock and redefine file_time_type to be

> > Second, is there a simple way to test the builder and config before I commit > > it? > > I am afraid not. > But there is a ugly (and certainly not simple) way to partially test the builder that I mentioned recently [1]. I say partially because I ended up removing all the builders apart from my own. @Dmitri - Has anyone considered reorganising zorg so it is easier to

> On Mar 3, 2020, at 17:16, Shoaib Meenai <smeenai at fb.com> wrote: > > `arc patch` should preserve the author information in the original commit, if there was any. At least it has in my experience. Yes, but I think people can upload raw patches to Phabricator without using `arc diff`. I know I ran into one of these just last week where I used Johannes' script (thanks!) and