[LLVMdev] Compile programs with the LLVM Compiler as a gsoc project

Kumaripaba Miyurusara Atukorala paba50 at gmail.com
Sun Mar 30 11:19:18 PDT 2008

Thank you.
I'll take all these valuable facts in to consideration and come up with my
proposal for
this project .


On 3/30/08, Török Edwin <edwintorok at gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris Lattner wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 29, 2008, at 11:53 PM, Kumaripaba Miyurusara Atukorala wrote:
> >
> >> hi,
> >> This e-mail is written to involve some of the project ideas in LLVM
> >> in GSOC this year.
> >> I was looking in to the ideas mentioned under improving current
> >> system and found the idea of "Compile programs with the LLVM
> >> Compiler" to be interesting. I would like to compile one of the large
> >> code bases that have not yet been compiled with LLVM and convert the
> >> build system to be compatible with the LLVM Programs testsuite.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> But I have several doubts to be clarified. They are listed below.
> >>
> >>     * I would like to know whether this is a suitable project for GSOC?
> >>     * What software has already been compiled with LLVM and what are
> >>       not; so that I can identify the possible candidates for the
> >>       project?
> >>
> > I think this would be a great project.  However, I would rephrase it
> > to be more concrete.
> >
> > How about taking a linux distro like redhat or gentoo or whatever you
> > are familiar of comfortable with, and try compiling the whole thing
> > with llvm-gcc?  As part of the GSoC project, you could file bug
> > reports for any issues you hit and help track down problems.
> >
> Excellent idea!
> When testing large code bases built with llvm, and trying to track down
> where the problem is it would be very useful to have an automated tool
> to help. Something similar to 'git bisect', or bugpoint but for many
> source files.
> For example: built entire code with gcc, get some "expected output" (run
> make check, ....), same for llvm-gcc. If they differ, start tracking
> down (automatically!) in which source files the problem is.  Then you
> build half code with llvm, half with gcc. If it breaks, you build 1/4
> llvm, 3/4 gcc; if it doesn't break you build 3/4 llvm, 1/4 gcc, and so
> on. The situation should be logged by a tool, because for example I
> would certainly forget which build worked, and which one didn't.
> It would make sense to cache files previously built, an easy way to do
> that would be to build everything with one compiler, then backup&remove
> one half, and built it with the other compiler (just run make with the
> correct compiler, it will rebuild the missing files). Then restore the
> half, remove a quarter, repeat.
> If this tool could be a drop-in wrapper for CC/CXX, it would be
> excellent, since nearly every autotooled package could be tested this way.
> P.S.: to avoid duplicate bug reports, I think filing a "meta" bug that
> holds as depedencies all bugs that affect package X would be useful.
> Best regards,
> --Edwin
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080330/e01d60c8/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list