<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="8">
    <tr>
        <th>Issue</th>
        <td>
            <a href=https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/61649>61649</a>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <th>Summary</th>
        <td>
            LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS & LLVM_ENABLE_RUNTIMES should be disjoint, yet openmp is listed in both?
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
      <th>Labels</th>
      <td>
            new issue
      </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
      <th>Assignees</th>
      <td>
      </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
      <th>Reporter</th>
      <td>
          bjodah
      </td>
    </tr>
</table>

<pre>
    I'm building llvm from source, and I'm a bit confused by the documentation of the cmake options:

>From https://llvm.org/docs/CMake.html, emphasis (bold) is mine
<dl>
<dt>LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS:STRING</dt>
<dd>Semicolon-separated list of projects to build, or all for building all (clang, lldb, lld, polly, etc) projects. This flag assumes that projects are checked out side-by-side and not nested, i.e. clang needs to be in parallel of llvm instead of nested in llvm/tools. This feature allows to have one build for only LLVM and another for clang+llvm using the same source checkout. The full list is: clang;clang-tools-extra;cross-project-tests;libc;libclc;lld;lldb;<b>openmp</b>;polly;pstl</dd>
<dt>LLVM_ENABLE_RUNTIMES:STRING</dt>
<dd>Build libc++, libc++abi, libunwind or compiler-rt using the just-built compiler. This is the correct way to build runtimes when putting together a toolchain. It will build the builtins separately from the other runtimes to preserve correct dependency ordering. If you want to build the runtimes using a system compiler, see the [libc++ documentation](https://libcxx.llvm.org/BuildingLibcxx.html). Note: the list <b>should not have duplicates with LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS</b>. The full list is: compiler-rt;libc;libcxx;libcxxabi;libunwind;<b>openmp</b> To enable all of them, use: LLVM_ENABLE_RUNTIMES=all</dd>
</dl>

I get the impression that openmp runtime is perhaps different from the openmp "compiler"? Either way I think the docs could be improved here, would you agree?
</pre>
<img width="1px" height="1px" alt="" src="http://email.email.llvm.org/o/eJyMld9v4jgQx_8a8zICUXuh8MDDhsKJU7d32u3d68qJJ8StY0f2pJT__jROCu2pezoJ4cR25sd3Ph7rlOzRI27EohCLu4nuqQlxUz4Fo5tJGcx5cxDytoWyt85YfwTnXlqoY2ghhT5WKOQWtDcwbNNQWoIq-LpPaKA8AzUIJlR9i5402eAh1HmyavUzQuh4Lgn1VczvxHz837P9hqjLC3Iv5J79zkI8Crk3oUpC7rff9DPOGmodx4Bt1-hkEwi5KoMzQq7BJmitx9Gy2hon1O76RkLt7u___vZz9_C1uN_9_PP7H7_vto8_hPr64_H74eE3obbsjj58ZYTa_cDWVsEFP03Y6agJDTibiHPrYnjCihJQGFTj6EIE7RzUIV6V5AkhV5XT_sh7nDPlOPLQBefOOTOqOJk3uzN4bGyC2ukj6JT6FhNQo-nqWEeEqsHqGQ2EniBZg9PyPOUx18oHAo-JMDuyM5xBjgI8ohkCR7AeODXn0HFaue7WJ0Jt-H34nnfxipB7CsFdgkNNfUROMZyywUa_IASPQ_pZiODdGVj_HJP2gRqMeWWUpMg--8RiMTFJtzhSN-QXemKHCHXv3FAAy8SMBlSRx2mObIqvFDXPxZDSdBRrSpgoCVU4W1bj4PKDM8N_KVQh1LYUahc69G03QMHvQhVDkVTRJXIjLeY_Gfv-18Pj4dvufzBWZKFyXLLIv-27N13acaL3J-sNE1aFtrMO4zTSO9We-kRTVp0uG8Yq2TQcxBAjVgQnfb4wC7H3ZBmtU4Meup4o2wtHzFXSwKJWjbZ-BgeCk3Vu_JJNZnfWJ3g7Hu489AxeHOp8cUABuogJ48s1FIMdeoO-OkOIBqP1xxkcajiHHk7a0zVONngxNSStIZ0TYXtJl4VKiHmvWBRXET82JrG4E3L1r65jy-r1dfau-RTj8b0fVob2s57BQyBk9NhJJnGEJjWhd8ORy2fA9J2zlSaW1lIDnzegN8R-gfe10B_RfX29PDAg-Xng49cUw2MA9Lp0-biO3bllzfqUM_oc3zvtPiWeJ9612fx_gCNSVsa2XOvE10DuWUMwbxVkIjuMje4SGFvXGNHTO3CGzULKa2WlUHvY2YwUA3wAaqx_frt2ElRZ_nJwHV7QQIMx31qnvMJI6WNEFGo_MRtl1mqtJ7i5Wd6uF8vFerWeNBtd1_JG6nq-RiPNXC_NqpJmcbsytwa1MhO7kXOp5kqqm_l8Kdez5Xxe1cv1arVQyxKVEl_m2GrrLihNbEo9bpY3yy_ridMlupQvYSk9niAvcnaLu0nc8DfTsj8m8WXOGKSrFbLkcPMZRCDk8tPawYhkiWBsegrWE8txxks5bMq0De29DNSwNn10m4-H42ip6ctZFdrxfh6Ht-Yq5D7nwZd1zvOfAAAA__-nkMyW">