[llvm-dev] Upgrading LLVM's minimum required CMake version

Thu Apr 9 16:41:23 PDT 2020

Aha! I don't think I was getting that from you earlier. Thanks so much for
the clarification.

So... it seems like folk are generally OK with bumping the minimum cmake
version to whatever is going to be in (say) the next visual studio release
when that emerges? I'd really like to protect workflows if at all possible
- though I admit that's not my workflow so I'm just guessing right now.

Thoughts?

-eric

On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 4:38 PM Chris Tetreault <ctetreau at quicinc.com> wrote:

> Just to clarify, I’m not actually suggesting that we document any minimum
> sort of environment (other than specific compiler and cmake versions as we
> currently do). Such a specification would probably be overly restrictive to
> us in having to maintain it, and to users who might otherwise be able to
> build LLVM. I’m only suggesting that we consider what’s in popular
> distros/environments when deciding if it’s worth it to upgrade. The only
> things I’m actually asking for are:
>
>
>
>    1. Let’s only upgrade the CMake minimum version requirement if there
>    is an actual compelling reason to
>    2. Recognize that the ability to build on diverse environments is a
>    feature, and make a good-faith attempt to support it if reasonable
>    3. Please gosh no “setup.sh”
>
>
>
> I support bumping the minimum CMake version. I don’t support a policy of
> unconditionally bumping the minimum CMake version periodically.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>    Christopher Tetreault
>
>
>
> *From:* Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 9, 2020 4:18 PM
> *To:* Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>
> *Cc:* Alexandre Ganea <alexandre.ganea at ubisoft.com>; Shoaib Meenai <
> smeenai at fb.com>; Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com>; James Y Knight <
> jyknight at google.com>; LLVM Dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Chris Tetreault
> <ctetreau at quicinc.com>
> *Subject:* [EXT] Re: [llvm-dev] Upgrading LLVM's minimum required CMake
> version
>
>
>
> FWIW I do very much agree here.
>
>
>
> Currently we specify a base set of compiler tools and cmake versions, but
> at this point if we follow the proposals mentioned by Philip, Chris, and
> Reid we need to actually give supported OS/Distro/Developer Tools versions
> in order to let people know base requirements. I'm not against specifying
> this, but I think we need consensus on how far back we're ok with "base
> system" or "LTS release" we're willing to support and the technical debt
> associated with such a support strategy :)
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> -eric
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 4:13 PM Philip Reames via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> I would be opposed to this proposal.  I've worked with build systems that
> went this route before.  What happens is the script grows ever more
> complicated, the person who wrote the script eventually leaves, and no one
> knows how to build it outside of a particular frozen set of environments.
> I've literally seen code bases die (i.e. no one wants to work on them,
> eventual rewrite target) due to issues this can be traced solely back to
> this decision.
>
> The fact we use standard build tools is a feature not a bug.  Let's not
> "fix" our way into a much worse set of problems.
>
> Philip
>
> p.s. To be clear, I'm not stating an opinion on the original question of
> whether building cmake from source was a reasonable expectation.
>
> On 4/9/20 2:55 PM, Alexandre Ganea via llvm-dev wrote:
>
> Sorry if this was discussed,
>
>
>
> Why not have a *setup.sh*/*setup.bat*/*setup.exe* which could
> download/install/setup everything we want, at the version we want, on a
> vanilla system? Handle the cases described by Chris below? Why leave the
> burden to the end-user?
>
>
>
> Currently, it’s not exactly trivial to setup everything for building &
> running LLVM on Windows on a cloud VM if you want `ninja check-all` to pass
> on
> -DLLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS=llvm;mlir;clang;lld;clang-tools-extra;compiler-rt;lldb.
> There are many manuals steps, and often things that you forget (GnuWin32
> FTW). On Ubuntu it is a bit easier, but still lots of trial and error.
>
>
>
> We use NuGet
> <https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/nuget/install-nuget-client-tools>
> packages in our build system and for our developers, to ensure they always
> have the right setup. Our games always build and use the toolings from the
> .nugets, not the default installations on the machine. This guarantees
> universal determinism everywhere and makes the developer setup a
> *one-click-exe*. Setting up a similar thing for LLVM for different OSes
> could be a bit more tricky, but nothing insurmountable?
>
>
>
>
>
> *De :* llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>
> <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> *De la part de* Shoaib Meenai via
> llvm-dev
> *Envoyé :* April 9, 2020 4:26 PM
> *À :* Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> <rnk at google.com>; James Y Knight
> <jyknight at google.com> <jyknight at google.com>
> *Cc :* llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> *Objet :* Re: [llvm-dev] Upgrading LLVM's minimum required CMake version
>
>
>
> I agree that’s valuable, but then it’s also important to pin down exactly
> what a “modern OS” is, and which ones we should keep in mind when we’re
> considering e.g. which CMake versions are feasible. (The same applies even
> more so to toolchain requirements, of course.)
>
>
>
> *From: *llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Reid
> Kleckner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> *Reply-To: *Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 1:20 PM
> *To: *James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com>
> *Cc: *"llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [llvm-dev] Upgrading LLVM's minimum required CMake version
>
>
>
> I would add my voice to Chris's: building out of the box on standard
> distros is a valuable feature. I don't have time to really participate in
> this discussion, but I'd discourage us from adding any more steps at all to
> the LLVM getting started document.
>
>
>
> When I started working on compilers, it was important that I could build
> LLVM on the system and hardware that I had. That was a meaningful
> differentiating advantage over GCC, which sent me off on a side quest to
> check out two unfamiliar arbitrary precision math libraries, and asked me
> if I wanted to do a two-stage bootstrap. Forget that. From a modern OS,
> building LLVM should be as simple as:
>
> - Install a standard C++ toolchain
>
> - Clone source
>
> - Paste a standard configuration command
>
> - make
>
>
>
> If we get too far away from that, we've lost something.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 2:49 PM James Y Knight via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> I am strongly in favor of increasing the minimum CMake version.
>
>
>
> I think we should NOT be waiting for the next LLVM release to do so, but
> should do so as soon as practical (e.g. maybe a month from now). A warning
> message emitted in CMake spam is not likely to help users very much, IMO.
> An entry in the release notes saying "This version of LLVM now requires
> CMake X.Y.Z." along with a link to the completely-trivial instructions on
> how to get, build, and use a new version for building LLVM (WITHOUT having
> to install it!), should both suffice -- and is more likely to be useful.
>
>
>
> I do NOT think we should have a policy tying ourselves to versions
> supported by certain LTS releases. Users of such LTSes can download a newer
> cmake. We should, of course, strive to not be unnecessarily annoying --
> even though the amount of work to download a new version is small, it's not
> zero. We should _consider_ the versions that developers are likely to have
> pre-installed on their machines, and drop support for those versions only
> when the new features are judged compelling enough to offset the cost
> (small-pain-per-developer times number-of-deveopers-affected).
>
>
>
> I agree with others who say we should only upgrade when would be truly
> valuable -- not automatically just because a new version exists. We should
> avoid changing the minimum-requirement too often.
>
>
>
> FInally, I think we should put the decision of when such an upgrade is
> judged valuable into the hands of those who are spending the most time
> working on the build system. We do not need to redo this discussion every
> time.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 4:36 PM Chris Tetreault via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> We should decide who we consider the major distros to be. In my mind this
> is Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, and CentOS/RHEL. We should also consider Visual
> Studio releases and whatever OSX and the major BSD’s have. (I honestly have
> no idea so I’ll refrain from speculating)
>
>
>
> For all of these, we should try very hard to support the most recent LTS.
> For the previous LTS, it would be nice if we could support it, but we
> shouldn’t require it. Old LTSs tend to have really out of date packages,
> especially in times like now with Ubuntu where we’re really close to the
> current LTS becoming the old LTS.
>
>
>
> That said, if CMake version X has a killer feature that we need, we should
> consider upgrading even if it doesn’t fit this criteria. Similarly, we
> should not just upgrade because the minimum bound of CMake versions
> supported by this set of OSs increased. The point is to upgrade only when
> there’s a compelling reason, and this set of OSs is just a heuristic of
> “most people probably already have this CMake version.”
>
>
>
> *From:* Shoaib Meenai <smeenai at fb.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 8, 2020 12:58 PM
> *To:* Chris Tetreault <ctetreau at quicinc.com>; Eric Christopher <
> echristo at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> *Subject:* [EXT] Re: [llvm-dev] Upgrading LLVM's minimum required CMake
> version
>
>
>
> Yeah, I don’t anticipate Windows posing problems. Also, it’s pretty common
> in Windows to just install software yourself, and CMake ships prebuilt
> binaries and an installer, so it’s pretty easy to get set up with it.
>
>
>
> Chris, I’m gonna reiterate a question of mine from an earlier email, since
> you may have thoughts on it:
>
>
>
> * If we want to limit ourselves to CMake versions supported by LTS
> releases of distros, which distros should we consider, and how far back
> should we go (i.e. is it just the latest LTS or the last two LTS versions)?
>
>
>
> *From: *llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Chris
> Tetreault via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> *Reply-To: *Chris Tetreault <ctetreau at quicinc.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 12:51 PM
> *To: *Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>
> *Cc: *"llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [llvm-dev] Upgrading LLVM's minimum required CMake version
>
>
>
> Visual studio 2019 ships with CMake 3.15.5, which is pretty darn new IMO.
> From what I can tell, CMake versions are tied to visual studio releases. So
> assuming we go with “what do recent LTS distros have” as our metric, I
> think it’s reasonable to say “what do recent visual studio versions have”.
> It probably makes sense to confirm with MS though before we assume that
> this is the case.
>
>
>
> *From:* Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 8, 2020 12:41 PM
> *To:* Chris Tetreault <ctetreau at quicinc.com>
> *Cc:* Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com>; Louis Dionne <ldionne at apple.com>;
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> *Subject:* [EXT] Re: [llvm-dev] Upgrading LLVM's minimum required CMake
> version
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> Throwing a couple of comments in:
>
>
>
> Chris's position here has a lot of good points and we want to make sure
> we're not raising the barrier too high. I definitely want to be able to
> push ahead with our versions of tools; being able to update quickly is one
> of the hallmarks of the llvm project. That said, binary packages that can
> be updated are a minimal first step IMO. I'd really like to not build
> anything from source :) It seems like there are binaries available for
> cmake for all of our current platforms, but the windows use case that he
> brings is definitely a significant one. Can we perhaps reach out and find
> out the likelihood of a reasonably soonish update there? Linux distros are
> probably less of a problem - while we all can't use ppas we should be able
> to do something, similarly with osx.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> -eric
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 9:53 AM Chris Tetreault via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> A line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere. How many “easy” things are
> we going to require the user to do? Today it’s build a specific CMake from
> source. What’s next?
>
>
>
> Not having to manually track down a bunch of dependencies before building
> is a feature. Not having to have an internet connection at build time (if
> we were to script the getting of the custom CMake) is a feature. Being able
> to just call cmake instead of using some build_llvm.sh that (probably
> poorly) wraps cmake and downloads the correct version is a feature. Being
> able to use CMake that is distributed with visual studio so that invoking
> cmake from the developer powershell just works without fiddling with PATHs
> is a feature. Not having to install msys so that I can invoke
> download_cmake.sh is a feature. Not having to have the correct version of
> python (is it 2 or 3?) be on the path in order to invoke download_cmake.py
> is a feature. Not having to remember to do --recurse-submodules on the llvm
> repo if we include it as a git submodule is a feature. The list goes on.
> Yeah, these are all little things, but a bunch of little things adds up to
> a huge barrier.
>
>
>
> People use Linux distos because by and large they just have all the
> dependencies that they need. I know I personally hate installing some open
> source thing on my machines when they have some dependency that’s not in
> the repos. Sure, it may be easy to build CMake from source. But now I have
> two CMakes: one that is automatically updated when I do sudo apt-get
> upgrade, and one that is just randomly in some folder that’s probably not
> on the PATH. I personally would really appreciate it if we made an attempt
> to reduce this sort of friction.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>    Christopher Tetreault
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> *On Behalf Of *Mehdi
> AMINI via llvm-dev
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 8, 2020 9:06 AM
> *To:* Louis Dionne <ldionne at apple.com>
> *Cc:* llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> *Subject:* [EXT] Re: [llvm-dev] Upgrading LLVM's minimum required CMake
> version
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 9:02 AM Louis Dionne <ldionne at apple.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 7, 2020, at 22:16, Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 11:27 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think it does make a difference how many things we ask new developers to
> do to get up and running - because we've asked them to do one thing doesn't
> mean it's low-cost to ask them to do another thing.
>
>
>
> In this case I see it rather that if we ask them to do one quite big thing
> already, we should be OK with what seems like a trivial one.
>
>
>
> I strongly agree. I think Mehdi's point can be summarized as (Mehdi, feel
> free to correct me):
>
>
>
>     It's incredibly trivial to install CMake, so if a user is *already*
> required to install a non-default toolchain (which is not so trivial),
> requiring them to install a non-default CMake is not increasing the barrier
> by much.
>
>
>
> Thanks, this is my point indeed!
>
>
>
> I think it is even slightly stronger than what you wrote since you don't
> even need to *install* CMake as it can be built and used directly from the
> build directory: it is entirely non-intrusive on the system.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Mehdi
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_llvm-2Ddev&d=DwMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=OUvi60kOTuMyRUJcCtHsN-RK1gHy4sXxEGS0pAunCoE&s=W77RObkJ6AlX4-NZ-OApzF80Y5rSjh4gDzuBG4ScjEQ&e=>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_llvm-2Ddev&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=RvaD9Q_VY7Y2QSH5JAtJlUDjQZKLr1RSWDceq7JxvZE&s=SdeUoPXT_jrLA6F111g6osrDG6MW34YbjgUwfq1YSl0&e=>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_llvm-2Ddev&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=RvaD9Q_VY7Y2QSH5JAtJlUDjQZKLr1RSWDceq7JxvZE&s=SdeUoPXT_jrLA6F111g6osrDG6MW34YbjgUwfq1YSl0&e=>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> LLVM Developers mailing list
>
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200409/07310fb4/attachment-0001.html>