[llvm] r191042 - Fix LTO handling of module-level assembly (PR14152).
daniel at zuster.org
Mon Sep 23 13:36:44 PDT 2013
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Tom Roeder <tmroeder at google.com> wrote:
> I think it could be refactored along these lines. I was hoping for
> clients of the library not to have to know about the dependency but
> simply to get it implicitly by depending on lib/LTO. Is there a way to
> do this using llvm-build?
No, but thats a feature. The goal is that the ultimate library clients
always get to choose what targets they support, so individual libraries
aren't supposed to force any particular target linkage.
> After looking through the code a bit, I see that the only callers of
> the InitializeAll* routines are in tools/. So, if this is the existing
> design direction, then I'll see about pulling those parts up into
> clients of lib/LTO.
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> > Can you explain why lib/LTO needs to depend on all-targets? I'm not sure
> > actually want this behavior, what we generally want is that clients can
> > the library and then pick the list of targets that get included. In this
> > case, I think the right thing that should happen is that both tools/lto
> > llvm-lto depend on all targets and handle the target initialization,
> > lib/LTO itself just relies on the targets already having been
> > Is it possible to factor lib/LTO in that fashion?
> > - Daniel
> > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Tom Roeder <tmroeder at google.com>
> >> I've written a patch now (in consultation with Peter) that does
> >> exactly this: tools/llvm-lto is split into a lib/LTO component and a
> >> tools/llvm-lto component, and tools/llvm-lto is written to depend only
> >> on lib/LTO (and not tools/lto, hence not libLTO.so). This should solve
> >> the problems with the freebsd build and additionally be a better
> >> factorization of the code.
> >> However, this design led to an interesting problem: lib/LTO needs to
> >> depend on all-targets, and having a library that depends on
> >> all-targets wasn't supported by the existing llvm-build scripts (the
> >> required_libraries of all-targets came up with empty
> >> required_libraries of their own). So, I've modified
> >> llvm-build/llvmbuild/main.py to fill out these implicit dependencies,
> >> using the information from the add_to_library_groups entries in the
> >> LLVMBuild.txt files.
> >> I've run clean builds with cmake/ninja, cmake/make, and Makefile and
> >> run check successfully on each of them (on Linux). And I've built
> >> LLVMgold.so against the Makefile version and tested it on a simple
> >> test file (the test case from this patch).
> >> However, my patch as it stands combines svn mv operations with edits
> >> on the moved files, so it's far more verbose than necessary and loses
> >> some of the history information (by not exactly capturing the move
> >> information). Would you like me to formulate this as two patches: a
> >> move followed by edits?
> >> Please let me know what you think.
> >> Thanks,
> >> Tom
> >> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk>
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:25:17PM -0700, Tom Roeder wrote:
> >> >> Actually, it looks like libLTO.so simply isn't getting built or found
> >> >> here
> >> >> and that's why the test is failing.
> >> >
> >> > Hm? The compile log:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > seems to indicate that libLTO is being built.
> >> >
> >> > I suspect that the problem is that the rpath isn't being embedded
> >> > in the llvm-lto binary on FreeBSD in the correct way, though I can't
> >> > tell for sure, since I don't have access to a FreeBSD machine.
> >> >
> >> > I'm beginning to think that the right way to solve this problem is
> >> > to move LTOCodeGenerator.cpp and LTOModule.cpp in tools/lto into
> >> > a new component 'lto' in lib/LTO and have tools/lto (which would
> >> > then contain only the C interface) and tools/llvm-lto (and maybe
> >> > tools/gold in the future) depend on the lto component. That way,
> >> > the LTO support library is no different to any other component of
> >> > LLVM and is less likely to cause problems across platforms.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > --
> >> > Peter
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> llvm-commits mailing list
> >> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-commits