[cfe-dev] Macros for revision number and commit hash

Mon Mar 18 09:12:57 PDT 2019

> On Mar 17, 2019, at 10:58 AM, Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote:
> 
> This would basically undo https://reviews.llvm.org/D37272 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D37272> which also caused lots of incremental build work after every sync (and technically, after every local commit). So if this got added, it should probably be opt-in and only be set for production builds, not for dev builds.

I don’t think so. What you point out was in a header. I’d only put the two new definitions in Version.cpp.

> On Mar 18, 2019, at 8:07 AM, Tom Honermann via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> On 3/17/2019 2:50 PM, Aaron Ballman via cfe-dev wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 1:59 PM Nico Weber via cfe-dev
>> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> This would basically undo https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__reviews.llvm.org_D37272&d=DwIGaQ&c=DPL6_X_6JkXFx7AXWqB0tg&r=oOJsFtgkFCCcDlfLWKmfrVDtpXLihXJTBGJfSapXCV0&m=NN7eJZPEoSXTgtLbDft08spwp4-8SuqJAEb82D7VQ_g&s=xAZXMyOnpVwmiNzdVbq3IST7I4DrGtNBpcnyXJWSsAI&e= which also caused lots of incremental build work after every sync (and technically, after every local commit). So if this got added, it should probably be opt-in and only be set for production builds, not for dev builds.
>>> 
>>> Since you can't compare git hashes, when do you imagine would __clang_commit_hash__ be useful?
>> As mentioned upthread, I believe this is for automated equality
>> comparisons, mostly. You can compare git hashes for equality, so I
>> guess that's useful.

Correct, tools that automatically handle revisions. For example, we currently have bots that parse clang -v, and that output is unfortunately aimed at humans (bots aren’t human). That’s broken in the past.

>>> Doesn't __clang_revision_number__ solve the same problem that __has_feature() and friends solve, only in a worse way?
>> This one is less clear to me, especially given that we're phasing out
>> svn. What will this macro represent once we've fully switched away
>> from svn?

That’s captured on the git migration page <https://llvm.org/docs/Proposals/GitHubMove.html#on-managing-revision-numbers-with-git>.

It’s orthogonal to __has_feature, and indeed  __has_feature solves the problems it solves more competently.

>>> In practice, I found all the __clang_major__ / __clang_minor__ etc built-ins to be useless because they're gratuitously different in Xcode's clang and there isn't a vendor id define. I suppose that's what Troy said above.
>> +infinity (this causes considerable problems for our tools)
> 
> Likewise.  We have to parse the output of 'clang --version' to determine
> if the Clang version we're emulating is Apple Clang (or ARM Clang or
> Android Clang or ...).  It would be great to have a __clang_vendor__ or
> similar macro that we could rely on instead.

I’d support such a proposal, separate from this one.

> Tom.
> 
>> 
>> ~Aaron
>> 
>>> So overall maybe this isn't fully thought through yet.
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 1:02 PM Tobias Hieta via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>> I am not familiar with the Clang code base, but I faced a similar issue recently. We made sure to only trigger a single rebuild when getting a new hash by generating a small CPP file that contained the hash instead of sticking it in a header that was included everywhere. This would only rebuild the generated CPP and relink. Maybe another thing that can be considered is to not refresh the hash when in debug configuration? This would allow you to build/develop locally without rebuilds when you commit or pull.
>>>> 
>>>> Let me know if you want me to dig up my CMake incantation I used for this and I can post it to the list.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Tobias.
>>>> 
>>>>> On 17 Mar 2019, at 17:54, JF Bastien via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mar 17, 2019, at 9:51 AM, JF Bastien <jfbastien at apple.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 2019, at 7:06 AM, Roman Lebedev <lebedev.ri at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 4:59 PM JF Bastien <jfbastien at apple.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 2019, at 12:51 AM, Roman Lebedev <lebedev.ri at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 6:51 AM Chris Lattner via cfe-dev
>>>>>>>>> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 15, 2019, at 2:13 PM, JF Bastien via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Hello macro enthusiasts!
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> By default, clang defines a lot of macros that allow developers to figure out things about the compiler that’s building them. I’m proposing that we add two more:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> __clang_revision_number__ : an unsigned integer, representing the current branch’s revision number.
>>>>>>>>>> __clang_commit_hash__ : a string containing a hexadecimal hash, representing the current checkout’s hash.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> These would be set by cmake when building LLVM, and make the most sense in a monorepo on git. There’s been discussion of clang revision number in the context of git migration, captured on the git migration page.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I’m generally +1 on exposing such metadata.  The only downside I see is that a git pull could cause a relink of the entire world (even if otherwise unnecessary) just to update these fields.  I suspect that this is going to be more painful in a monorepo world for people who work downstream of clang (e.g. LLDB developers).
>>>>>>>>> That will indeed cause relinking at best, or even recompilation at worst.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Is there an implementation approach that allows us to get the benefit of this extra metadata without reducing dev productivity?
>>>>>>>>> The somewhat reasonable solution (apart from not doing this at all)
>>>>>>>>> would be to build that
>>>>>>>>> info into into *always*-shared library, so it would be the only one in
>>>>>>>>> the need of relinking.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Though i do believe from practice (from doing that on another project)
>>>>>>>>> that will still
>>>>>>>>> likely require relinking of every other lib/bin that links against
>>>>>>>>> that version-library.
>>>>>>>>> Not sure if that can be fixed too, would love to know how if it can.
>>>>>>>> Same problem __DATE__ has. In terms of “bad things can happen” this is pretty low IMO.
>>>>>>> Yes, but i'm not sure this is on the same scale of badness.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> That macro should change once a day i think, at most?
>>>>>>> One usually commits *much* more frequently,
>>>>>>> from 1 commit/hour to 1 commit/5minutes i'd guesstimate.
>>>>>> You rebuild llvm and build your codebase using the new llvm that often?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> IMO the main source of badness from __DATE__ is the non- reproducibility (for which we have a warning). Here it’s already non-reproducible because you’ve changed your compiler... I’d certainly expect a full rebuild when these new macros change: you changed the compiler. It’s a bug if it doesn’t cause a rebuild.
>>>>> Actually I get the concern now! You mean cmake changes cause all of llvm to rebuild, and that would trigger on a llvm dev’s machine! Not as user code.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sorry I was slow to grok. I’ll try it out and see. Maybe incremental builds shouldn’t have the new commit? Or we might be able to limit the rebuild to Version.cpp. Or maybe the linker should do this? 🤷‍♂️
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> -Chris
>>>>>>>>> Roman.
>>>>>>> Roman.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Here are examples of similar numbers we currently offer:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> auto major     = __clang_major__;      // 7
>>>>>>>>>> auto minor     = __clang_minor__;      // 0
>>>>>>>>>> auto patch     = __clang_patchlevel__; // 0
>>>>>>>>>> auto version   = __clang_version__;    // "7.0.0 (tags/RELEASE_700/final 342594)”
>>>>>>>>>> auto VERSION   = __VERSION__;          // "4.2.1 Compatible Clang 7.0.0 (tags/RELEASE_700/final 342594)”
>>>>>>>>>> auto gnu_major = __GNUC__;             // 4
>>>>>>>>>> auto gnu_minor = __GNUC_MINOR__;       // 2
>>>>>>>>>> auto gnu_patch = __GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__;  // 1
>>>>>>>>>> auto gxx_abi   = __GXX_ABI_VERSION;    // 1002
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> The two new values will be generally useful to tools that automatically handle revisions. For example, we currently have bots that parse clang -v, and that output is unfortunately aimed at humans (bots aren’t human). That’s broken in the past, and having these two values would help reduce the likelihood of breakage because macros have a pretty stable format and are easy to test.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Let us know what you think!
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> JF
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_cfe-2Ddev&d=DwIGaQ&c=DPL6_X_6JkXFx7AXWqB0tg&r=oOJsFtgkFCCcDlfLWKmfrVDtpXLihXJTBGJfSapXCV0&m=NN7eJZPEoSXTgtLbDft08spwp4-8SuqJAEb82D7VQ_g&s=BFqWiDbKetJ4Xw_5MsXOWaFlhdKgToOq8scoU8gq5pI&e=
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_cfe-2Ddev&d=DwIGaQ&c=DPL6_X_6JkXFx7AXWqB0tg&r=oOJsFtgkFCCcDlfLWKmfrVDtpXLihXJTBGJfSapXCV0&m=NN7eJZPEoSXTgtLbDft08spwp4-8SuqJAEb82D7VQ_g&s=BFqWiDbKetJ4Xw_5MsXOWaFlhdKgToOq8scoU8gq5pI&e=
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_cfe-2Ddev&d=DwIGaQ&c=DPL6_X_6JkXFx7AXWqB0tg&r=oOJsFtgkFCCcDlfLWKmfrVDtpXLihXJTBGJfSapXCV0&m=NN7eJZPEoSXTgtLbDft08spwp4-8SuqJAEb82D7VQ_g&s=BFqWiDbKetJ4Xw_5MsXOWaFlhdKgToOq8scoU8gq5pI&e=
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_cfe-2Ddev&d=DwIGaQ&c=DPL6_X_6JkXFx7AXWqB0tg&r=oOJsFtgkFCCcDlfLWKmfrVDtpXLihXJTBGJfSapXCV0&m=NN7eJZPEoSXTgtLbDft08spwp4-8SuqJAEb82D7VQ_g&s=BFqWiDbKetJ4Xw_5MsXOWaFlhdKgToOq8scoU8gq5pI&e=
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_cfe-2Ddev&d=DwIGaQ&c=DPL6_X_6JkXFx7AXWqB0tg&r=oOJsFtgkFCCcDlfLWKmfrVDtpXLihXJTBGJfSapXCV0&m=NN7eJZPEoSXTgtLbDft08spwp4-8SuqJAEb82D7VQ_g&s=BFqWiDbKetJ4Xw_5MsXOWaFlhdKgToOq8scoU8gq5pI&e=
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_cfe-2Ddev&d=DwIGaQ&c=DPL6_X_6JkXFx7AXWqB0tg&r=oOJsFtgkFCCcDlfLWKmfrVDtpXLihXJTBGJfSapXCV0&m=NN7eJZPEoSXTgtLbDft08spwp4-8SuqJAEb82D7VQ_g&s=BFqWiDbKetJ4Xw_5MsXOWaFlhdKgToOq8scoU8gq5pI&e=
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20190318/5f1cf397/attachment.html>