<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 3, 2015, at 9:24 AM, Martell Malone <<a href="mailto:martellmalone@gmail.com" class="">martellmalone@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span style="font-size:12.8px" class="">Cool. This then makes your other point about requiring LLVM tools less of an issue because the out-of-tree builds can use whatever tools you choose. We just need to make the builtins work so that you don’t need them already built.</span></blockquote><div class="">With that in mind for an intiial solution before you get to stripping out the cmake stuff so that it can do an out of tree bootstrap.<br class="">I have created a script that fits into the make bootstrapping method that already exists.<br class="">Not sure if this is up for removal because it is not dependent on auto tools?</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I will not be stripping out any of the existing CMake. If we go down this path what I’m going to do is refactor the CMake to produce to logically separated projects so that the builtins can be built with or without the runtime libraries. It will all still be CMake-based.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>-Chris</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Chris could you kindly add yourself as a reviewer to this <br class=""><a href="http://reviews.llvm.org/D14290" class="">http://reviews.llvm.org/D14290</a><br class=""><br class=""></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 6:15 PM, C Bergström <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:cbergstrom@pathscale.com" target="_blank" class="">cbergstrom@pathscale.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Steve King via llvm-dev<br class="">
<<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" class="">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:<br class="">
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Martell Malone <<a href="mailto:martellmalone@gmail.com" class="">martellmalone@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class="">
>> Just as a point for building the builtins shouldn't we just need llvm-ar ?<br class="">
><br class="">
> Thanks for pointing this out and I hope llvm-ar is up to the task.<br class="">
> Even if targets must still port binutils, each step toward LLVM<br class="">
> self-reliance is a step in the right direction.<br class="">
><br class="">
> Without getting too far ahead of ourselves, refactoring built-ins into<br class="">
> a distinct library is a great place to start.<br class="">
<br class="">
</div></div>Before anyone starts refactoring binutils - if you're really zealous<br class="">
or have some strong logical reason against it - there is the BSD elf<br class="">
tools project<br class="">
<br class="">
<a href="http://sourceforge.net/p/elftoolchain/wiki/Home/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">http://sourceforge.net/p/elftoolchain/wiki/Home/</a><br class="">
</blockquote></div><br class=""></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>