similar to: Clarifying the supported ways to build libc++, libc++abi and libunwind

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

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

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

Today, there're two different locations for runtimes files within Clang's installation: compiler-rt: headers: $prefix/lib/clang/$version/include(/sanitizer) libraries: $prefix/lib/clang/$version/lib/$os/libclang_rt.$name-$arch.$ext libc++, libc++abi, libunwind: headers: $prefix/include/c++/v1 libraries: $prefix/lib/$name.$ext The scheme used by libc++, libc++abi, libunwind

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 8:33 AM Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote: > On 12/19/17 9:15 AM, Petr Hosek via llvm-dev wrote: > > Today, there're two different locations for runtimes files within > > Clang's installation: > > > > compiler-rt: > > headers: $prefix/lib/clang/$version/include(/sanitizer) > > libraries: >

> On Sep 24, 2020, at 23:52, Petr Hosek <phosek at chromium.org> wrote: > > Using more interface libraries is definitely the right direction and a modern way to use CMake. I'm not sure if we can get to a single interface target since different runtimes have different requirements. I was assuming that we would have one interface target per dependency and use the existing CMake

> On Sep 22, 2020, at 15:28, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > From the "not largely affected" camp: > > - the churn doesn't feel that major for HAS_ and ... > - the uniformity feels nice > > and in general feels nice and in pursuit of the longer term goals here. > > -eric > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 11:58 AM Petr

> On Feb 20, 2020, at 14:25, Johannes Doerfert <johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 02/20, Louis Dionne via llvm-dev wrote: >> I know there has been significant discussion about "moving" from >> Phabricator to GitHub reviews and pull requests, etc. I'm not >> suggesting that we do anything in terms of global LLVM policy. >> However, as

> On Jul 28, 2016, at 12:59 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 28 Jul 2016 8:36 a.m., "David Chisnall via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > This does not apply to libc++. We support building the entire LLVM suite with other C++ standard library implementations (at

> 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

Hi, I know there has been significant discussion about "moving" from Phabricator to GitHub reviews and pull requests, etc. I'm not suggesting that we do anything in terms of global LLVM policy. However, as a maintainer of libc++, I commit __a lot__ of other people's code for them. It would be a huge time saver for me if I could nicely suggest to contributors (not force them) to

> On Jul 28, 2016, at 10:53 AM, Justin Lebar <jlebar at google.com> wrote: > > Thanks again for your thoughts, Chris. > >> As a straw man I would suggest the following criteria for inclusion into the mono-repo: >> >> (1) Projects in the mono-repo must be tightly coupled to specific versions or commits of other projects in the mono-repo > > I'm fine

> On Mar 3, 2020, at 18:48, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm one of those people ;) That's not something to be proud of if you expect a maintainer to commit on your behalf. If you commit yourself, then whatever. Louis > > -eric > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 2:20 PM Louis Dionne via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org

Hi Duncan, > […] > 2. Those working on projects *outside* the monolithic repo will get the downsides of both: a monolithic repo that they are only using parts of, and multiple repos that are somehow version-locked. > > 3. For many (most?) developers, changing to a monolithic git repo is a *bigger* workflow change than switching to separate git repos. Many people (and at least some

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

I think what she is referring to was that the build seemed to be triggered by a commit to a project that shouldn't trigger builds on a libcxx bot (i.e. the change was in llvm). I have a somewhat orthogonal but related question. In the past, commits to compiler-rt did not trigger builds on llvm/clang/sanitizer bots. Has this behaviour been rectified with the move to github? I am really sorry

On 22 October 2014 19:24, Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote: > I do compiler_rt + libc++abi + libc++ + clang (with a custom ToolChain) testing > of libc++ on bare-metal ARM.... so it is possible. Perhaps you mean to say that > it's not possible to test libunwind on arm-linux when using compiler_rt? Yeah, it's hard and clumsy, not impossible. Basically,

> On 18 Nov 2019, at 19:55, Peter Smith <peter.smith at linaro.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 15:23, Sergej Jaskiewicz <jaskiewiczs at icloud.com <mailto:jaskiewiczs at icloud.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi Peter, >> >> Thanks for your response. >> >> On 18 Nov 2019, at 17:44, Peter Smith <peter.smith at linaro.org> wrote:

Hi Louis, sorry for bothering you once more about the libcxx test suite! I was wondering whether you could help with some of my problems again. After the recent discussion on the mailing list and your diff, I was able to set up cross-compilation and remote-execution of the libcxx test suite, so thank you for that! We have split up the build of the libraries into different stages, so libcxx,