<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:06 PM, George Karpenkov <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ekarpenkov@apple.com" target="_blank">ekarpenkov@apple.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">Hi Kostya, <div><span class="gmail-"><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> What would be a reasonable way to check for its presence?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Frankly, I don't know.</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>A reasonable way would be to use CMake to detect the feature during the configuration phase,</div><div>and then generate a variable based on that, which would be later included during the compilation.</div><div>That would even improve the current experience, as one would be able to compile libFuzzer on a broader range of platforms.</div><div><br></div><div>I understand that the ability to compile libFuzzer independently of LLVM is important,</div></div></div></blockquote><div>Not just  independently of LLVM, but independently of anything else, including cmake. </div><div><br></div><div>>> <span style="font-size:12.8px">Actually, sorry, just testing with __has_attribute(target) is sufficient. Changing the build is not required.</span></div><div class="gmail-yj6qo gmail-ajU" style="font-size:12.8px"></div><div><br></div><div>Cool! </div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div>but that could be still done using CMake, and the libFuzzer repository already contains the CMakeLists.txt file.</div><div>What would you think about removing the build script and just using CMake?</div><div>That would just mean two compilation steps instead of one, yet could improve applicability.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>George</div><span class="gmail-"><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div> </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
LLVM webpage currently claims that LLVM should be buildable with those (<a href="http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#software" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://llvm.org/docs/GettingS<wbr>tarted.html#software</a>)<br>
<br>
There is another failure on <a href="http://green.lab.llvm.org/green/job/clang-stage1-configure-RA_build/33461/console" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://green.lab.llvm.org/gree<wbr>n/job/clang-stage1-configure-<wbr>RA_build/33461/console</a></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yep.</div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
Thanks!<br>
<div class="gmail-m_-6328432626263518888HOEnZb"><div class="gmail-m_-6328432626263518888h5"><br>
<br>
Repository:<br>
  rL LLVM<br>
<br>
<a href="https://reviews.llvm.org/D32096" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://reviews.llvm.org/D3209<wbr>6</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
</div></blockquote></span></div><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>