[cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] RFC: Dropping support for building sanitizers with autotools

[Eric Christopher]

I've used the autotools support to ensure that it still builds after llvm
changes, but we have enough testers that I don't really think it's an issue.

-eric

On Thu Feb 12 2015 at 7:15:48 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com>
> > To: "Alexey Samsonov" <vonosmas at gmail.com>
> > Cc: "Nico Weber" <nicolasweber at gmx.de>, "Clang Developers List" <
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "LLVM Dev"
> > <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>
> > Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 8:41:18 PM
> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: Dropping support for building sanitizers
> with     autotools
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Alexey Samsonov < vonosmas at gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> >
> > TL;DR I plan to do subj unless anyone objects.
> >
> >
> > Autotools support for building sanitizers was never complete, is a
> > proper subset of CMake capabilities, and the gap between the
> > features of CMake build and autotools is quickly increasing:
> > 1) OS: autotools support Linux, Mac OS X and Android; CMake also
> > supports FreeBSD and Windows.
> > 2) Architectures: autotools support i386 and x86_64, CMake also
> > supports MIPS, ARM/AArch64, PowerPC).
> > 3) Library variants: autotools don't support building shared ASan
> > runtime on Linux.
> > 4 [!!!]) Autotools build doesn't have *any* support for building and
> > running tests.
> > 5) The sets of compiler flags we use to build runtimes are different
> > in two builds, and are hard to kept in sync.
> >
> >
> > Because of (4), sanitizer runtimes built with autotools are severely
> > undertested, and maintaining two different build systems is a burden
> > I would like to get rid of. Now seems to be a good time for that:
> > we've cut off 3.6 release branch, and Hans assures me that 3.7
> > release process will use CMake.
> > +1, ship it.
>
> I agree. I've found the autotools building support fairly useless
> precisely because there's no way to run the tests.
>
>  -Hal
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> >
>
> --
> Hal Finkel
> Assistant Computational Scientist
> Leadership Computing Facility
> Argonne National Laboratory
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20150213/a7b8bb2e/attachment.html>