[libcxx-dev] Requiring monorepo layout when building libc++ and libc++abi

[Louis Dionne via libcxx-dev]

> On Mar 11, 2020, at 14:34, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> +Jorge Gorbe Moya <mailto:jgorbe at google.com> +saugustine at google.com <mailto:saugustine at google.com> 
> 
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 11:31 AM Louis Dionne <ldionne at apple.com <mailto:ldionne at apple.com>> wrote:
> +EricWF
> 
>> On Mar 11, 2020, at 14:07, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com <mailto:echristo at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Agreed. Let's talk about any code sharing ahead of time though if you wouldn't mind :)
> 
> There's a few candidates:
> - CMake functions that could be used by both
> 
> Anything build system related is great in my book.
>  
> - the atomic_support.h header copy-pasted into libc++
> 
> I think EricWF has a laundry list of technical debt we've accumulated because of this.
> 
> 
> *nod*
>  
> Eric (echristo@), is opening a Phab review with those code sharing changes sufficient, or did you mean something additional by "talk about code sharing ahead of time"?
>> 
> 
> A phab review sounds good to me, I was mostly concerned with sharing in libc++abi in such a way that it wasn't separately buildable if necessary, etc. Probably not really a worry, but just wanted to think about it. If something happens and it breaks some use cases terribly we can also just bring it up :)

If by "separately buildable" you mean building libc++abi.dylib (and its headers) as a standalone build product, then we will for sure retain that. I personally have use cases for that and I strongly suspect many others do, too.

Louis

> 
> -eric
> 
>  
>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 10:50 AM James Y Knight via libcxx-dev <libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>> +1. Any simplifications and cleanups of the buildsystem SGTM.
>> 
>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 1:28 PM Louis Dionne via libcxx-dev <libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>> Hey folks,
>> 
>> Now that the monorepo is the standard, would everybody be fine with requiring both libc++ and libc++abi sources to be accessible in a monorepo-like layout when building either of them? In other words, in order to build either libc++ or libc++abi, we would require the following layout:
>> 
>>    <root>/libcxx
>>    <root>/libcxxabi
>> 
>> I suggest not requiring the rest of the monorepo, simply because it wouldn't be useful, and I know of at least one use case that would break.
>> 
>> The benefit of adopting this assumption is that all the search for libcxx and libcxxabi sources can be removed, simplifying the build quite a bit. Eventually, we can even start sharing stuff between the two sub-projects. If we go forward with this, I'll be happy to make the clean ups I mention.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Louis
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/libcxx-dev/attachments/20200311/c287ffa3/attachment-0001.html>