similar to: Building an LLVM cross-compiler

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Cág via > llvm-dev > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 8:49 AM > To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Building an LLVM cross-compiler > > Hi everyone, > > Just a quick update. Here's what worked for me here*: > 1. Get the sources. > 2.

On Fri, 6 Nov 2020, Cág via llvm-dev wrote: > The process, in my opinion, should go like this: > 1. Get the sources (llvm, lld, compiler-rt, libunwind, libcxx...). > 2. Build an LLVM cross-compiler toolchain using native distribution's > compiler (i.e. build an x86_64 clang executable that targets aarch64). > 3. Cross-compile libc and other libraries/dependencies to run the

You’ve hit on one of the odd historical messes in LLVM. Compiler-RT can’t really be treated as a monolithic set of libraries when you are bootstrapping. In order to even configure the LLVM sanitizer runtimes you need libc and many other OS interfaces, so when bootstrapping you need to build the compiler-rt builtins library separately from the sanitizers. This can be done either by using the

Hi everyone, I recently sent a message that may or may not have made it to the list, on problems building an LLVM cross-compiler. Now the issue seems clear to me and is irrelevant at this point, I would like to discuss the general issue. Suppose you have a host system, a Linux distribution on an x86_64 machine, and want to build a cross-compiler for aarch64 (or any platform supported by LLVM,

You could try using zig for this. Here's an example build script of zig cross compiling llvm, lld, clang, and finally itself: https://github.com/ziglang/zig-bootstrap You can see the build script is not too complicated. The main trick is using CC and CXX to use `zig cc` and `zig c++` as drop-in replacements for a C and C++ compiler, respectively. I wrote some more details about this

Just a note about this: >I like this. I hope you don't mind if I borrow some of these ideas to >play with. C_COMPILER_WORKS is something I've never heard of. I'm also working on building a clang-based toolchain from scratch. To avoid CMake bailing out when a binary can't be linked, I use: -DCMAKE_TRY_COMPILE_TARGET_TYPE=STATIC_LIBRARY Along with:

On 28 July 2016 at 18:21, Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com> wrote: > Renato, I just want to point out that the Compiler-RT story is *WAY* more > complicated than it might seem from your comments here. Compiler-RT is > really two or three conceptually different things that happen to be in the > same project, and parts of it are very useful without libunwind, libcxxabi, > and

> On Jul 28, 2016, at 11:42 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Jul 28, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> >>> On Jul 28, 2016, at 10:53 AM, Justin Lebar <jlebar at google.com> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks again for your thoughts, Chris.

> On Jul 28, 2016, at 2:07 PM, Justin Lebar <jlebar at google.com> wrote: > > Chris, > > What I notice in your latest e-mail -- and I don't know if this is > intentional, so sorry if I'm reading too much into it -- is that the > language has switched from "an unwarranted and unacceptable burden" to > "a burden”: I consider it unwarranted and

Martin, good to hear from you. Thanks for the effort - I will test on 32bit and 64bit Windows 10. I will report ASAP. Ivan On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 8:42 PM Martin Storsjö <martin at martin.st> wrote: > On Sat, 15 Aug 2020, Ivan Serdyuk wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 8:39 PM Martin Storsjö <martin at martin.st> wrote: > > Hi, > >

On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 8:39 PM Martin Storsjö <martin at martin.st> wrote: > Hi, > > > On Sat, 15 Aug 2020, Ivan Serdyuk wrote: > > > Just as Shoaib said, libunwind only is useful in environments > > that use > > the Itanium C++ ABI - there's really no use for it in an MSVC > > context > > (either using MSVC or

You may also take a look at the ELLCC project (www.ellcc.org <http://www.ellcc.org/>). As far as I understand it they produce and package cross toolchains for a number of popular targets. - Matthias > On Aug 4, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Jonathan Roelofs via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On 8/4/17 1:14 PM, Goran Mekić via llvm-dev wrote: >> On

>> The decision of whether or not to include these projects >> affects only read-write consumers of these projects -- of which there >> are relatively few people. > > Maybe there are few, but the impact is non-insignificant. Also I think the opinions of the read-write consumers of the sub-projects being included should count for a lot I agree. > as a read-write

Tobias, My hope is that now is the time when owners of bots using autoconf will be migrating them to CMake, however I don’t expect that all the autoconf bots need to be migrated. My strong suspicion is that many of the autoconf bots that are remaining have CMake-equivolent bots already, so they can just be deactivated. -Chris > On Jan 14, 2016, at 6:06 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 3:00 PM Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com> wrote: > I'll try and reproduce later today. Is this Linux? Can you give me your > CMake command line? > Excuse the delay, been busy setting up a new machine - also an opportunity to try clean cmake setups rather than my aging configurations that have a bunch of old stuff baked in and manual variables changed,

Hello everyone, Below are some buildbot numbers for the last week of 4/29/2018 - 5/5/2018. Please see the same data in attached csv files: The longest time each builder was red during the week; "Status change ratio" by active builder (percent of builds that changed the builder status from greed to red or from red to green); Count of commits by project; Number of completed builds,

Hello everyone, Below are some buildbot numbers for the week of 2/25/2018 - 3/03/2018. Please see the same data in attached csv files: The longest time each builder was red during the week; "Status change ratio" by active builder (percent of builds that changed the builder status from greed to red or from red to green); Count of commits by project; Number of completed builds, failed

Hello everyone, Below are some buildbot numbers for the last week of 3/04/2018 - 3/10/2018. Please see the same data in attached csv files: The longest time each builder was red during the week; "Status change ratio" by active builder (percent of builds that changed the builder status from greed to red or from red to green); Count of commits by project; Number of completed builds,

Hello everyone, Below are some buildbot numbers for the last week of 12/31/2017 - 1/06/2018. Please see the same data in attached csv files: The longest time each builder was red during the week; "Status change ratio" by active builder (percent of builds that changed the builder status from greed to red or from red to green); Count of commits by project; Number of completed builds,

Hello everyone, Below are some buildbot numbers for the week of 5/6/2018 - 5/12/2018. Please see the same data in attached csv files: The longest time each builder was red during the week; "Status change ratio" by active builder (percent of builds that changed the builder status from greed to red or from red to green); Count of commits by project; Number of completed builds, failed