<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="">Hey Ben,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thank you for providing this feedback. I’m going to lay out some ideas that I have inline below.</div><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jun 9, 2016, at 11:26 AM, Craig, Ben via llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" class="">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""><p class="">I'm great with moving the runtimes into their own directory and
making cmake modules to standardize an interface between the LLVM
build process and the runtime build process. I would like to ask
for more though.</p><p class="">I find working with the runtimes a bit frustrating at times, and
I think a lot of that frustration stems from the second-class
nature of the runtime build process. The "best" way to build just
the runtimes today is to clone them in the llvm tree, pass a very
long cmake line, then run a very specific make / ninja line (i.e.
ninja cxx, ninja check-libcxxabi). This is even the case if I
don't want to use the freshly generated compiler. Here are some
specific nuisances that running in-tree has caused me:</p><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Agree on all points. It might be useful to provide an alternate top-level CMake file for runtime projects. There is some complication because the runtimes do use CMake modules from LLVM, so you’ll need either an LLVM checkout or a built & installed LLVM. My general hope in formalizing a runtimes directory is to start treating runtimes as first-class members of the LLVM project. Admittedly I’m coming from a different perspective than you, so I’m tackling the "LLVM & Clang developer who also wants runtimes” side of the problem. I am, however, sympathetic to your side too.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">
<ul class="">
<li class="">I routinely need to pull a new LLVM for new cmake files, even
though I am not building LLVM.</li></ul></div></div></blockquote><div>Some of this may be avoidable through restructuring our CMake modules. I think we should discuss this separately from the changes I’m asking for, but my general idea is it might be reasonable to create a separate LLVM repository that stores common CMake modules. If we did that it would require that *everyone* building LLVM would need to have those modules. We may be able to hide that complexity using CMake’s ExternalProject stuff. I’ll take it as a line item to look into that.</div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""><ul class="">
<li class="">I don't get to use "standard" commands to build and test the
components I work with. I want to just run make / ninja with no
arguments, but instead, I need to build specific targets.</li></ul></div></div></blockquote>This is the kind of thing I see as potentially solvable with a separate top-level CMake file for runtimes. That said, in general I’ve been moving toward adding more and more explicit targets into CMake. As a result of that my natural workflow is involving less and less running general commands and more and more running specific “ninja <some tool>” and “ninja check-llvm-<some test set>”.<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""><ul class="">
<li class="">Choices made for LLVM's build end up affecting mine, and I
don't have a good way to change them. For example, I wanted to
perform some libcxx builds without -Wl,-z,defs. I had to do
some wacky string filtering to remove it from the compile line
after the fact, instead of preventing it from getting added in
the first place. There wasn't a flag available on the LLVM side
to disable it at configure time.<br class=""></li></ul></div></div></blockquote></div><div>LLVM’s flags impacting libcxx is fixed by my runtimes proposal. In fact, that’s part of the point. Bleeding options from LLVM & Clang builds into runtime libraries is not cool. It causes lots of problems on Darwin, so we’re sensitive to this.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""><ul class=""><li class="">To get cmake to work, I have to set
HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB, even though I have no intention of
building LLVM. I then get to set
LIBCXX_HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB too, because reasons.</li></ul></div></blockquote>This is bad. I’m curious why you need to set those ever. Have you diagnosed this? For you to need to set that it means the host toolchain isn’t properly passing the CMake checks.<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""><ul class="">
<li class="">Multi-libs require multiple independent build directories,
with all the associated cmake overhead.<br class="">
</li>
</ul></div></blockquote>I strongly believe that for building multi-lib or more generally when building for multiple targets you want multiple build directories, and in particular the multiple-cmake invocations. I believe this because you want the checks to be relevant for the target, and the only way to do that is to run the checks once per target.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>That said, I also strongly believe that for any user of our projects we should find a way to have a single simple CMake invocation that gets the end result that you want. I don’t believe these are mutually exclusive goals.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>One of the development steps of the new runtime directory will be supporting specifying multiple targets to build the runtimes for, and having CMake construct the appropriate number of build directories and manage building them all through a single top-level configuration and build directory. If you’re skeptical about how doable this is I’d encourage you to look at this bot -> <a href="http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-3stage-ubuntu" class="">http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-3stage-ubuntu</a>.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>That bot does a full 3-stage clang build from a single CMake invocation:</div><div><br class=""></div><div>cmake -C ../llvm.src/tools/clang/cmake/caches/3-stage.cmake -GNinja -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD=all -DLLVM_BINUTILS_INCDIR=/opt/binutils/include ../llvm.src</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""><p class="">So why not run out of tree instead you may ask?</p>
<ul class="">
<li class="">No lit tests or lit utilities (FileCheck, not, etc…)<br class=""></li></ul></div></blockquote>I don’t know if the runtimes you’re building are setup for this or not, but you can get out-of-tree tests working if you have an LLVM installation on the system or a build directory that you can point at. Compiler-RT does this. It isn’t ideal but it is workable.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>We should have a better solution.<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""><ul class=""><li class="">Even more difficult to manage dependencies between libcxxabi
and libcxx</li></ul></div></blockquote><div>Yep. That sucks.</div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""><ul class="">
</ul><p class="">So some things I would like to see...</p>
<ul class="">
<li class="">Standalone runtime builds should use the "normal" build
interfaces (bare make, make all, make check, make install.
s/make/ninja as desired).</li></ul></div></blockquote>I think this is doable, but I’m hesitant to rope it in with what I’m trying to do here. Nothing I want to do would prevent this or make it any harder than it already is.<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""><ul class="">
<li class="">For in-tree builds, LLVM would use the new cmake
ExternalProject feature. This way LLVM's in-tree support could
be implemented in terms of the runtime's "normal" build
interfaces. LLVM may also define a refinement of that interface
to provide extra LLVM information on top.</li>
<ul class="">
<li class="">For example, maybe all llvm runtime projects get passed
something like LLVM_RUNTIME_LIBCXXABI_PRESENT and
LLVM_RUNTIME_LIBCXXABI_PATH, and those projects can act on
that or not.</li></ul></ul></div></blockquote>Yes, there will need to be a mechanism for communicating project dependencies between runtimes.<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""><ul class=""><ul class="">
</ul>
<li class="">Developers using standalone builds can use the same "LLVM
build" interface as the in-tree builds use.<br class=""></li></ul></div></blockquote>Yes. I’ve actually been having some hallway conversations about how to standardize the build interface a bit more cleanly. Some of this will depend on a per-project basis, but I think compiler-rt does some of this right today. </div><div><br class=""></div><div>Specifically if an LLVM build tree is available it builds as if it were in-tree and being distributed with that build. If the LLVM build tree isn’t available, it builds in a more standard *nix format that would be compatible with non-LLVM toolchains. I may be wrong, but I think that is probably the right behavior for all our runtimes.<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""><ul class=""><li class="">Break out testing infrastructure to a common repo, so that the
runtimes can have access to the testing "banana" without
dragging along the LLVM "gorilla”.</li></ul></div></blockquote>I’m hesitant to suggest more and more repos because I think there are some challenges and additional burdens with that. I do understand the benefit of what you’re asking for here, and I think it is worth considering. I think there is an argument for splitting out the LLVM testing infrastructure, as well as an argument for splitting out the LLVM build infrastructure.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>In both cases I think those changes are larger than what I’m proposing, but worth considering.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>-Chris</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Obligatory troll: Maybe we should move to github and change the whole repo structure in the process?<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""><p class="">
</p>
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/9/2016 12:20 PM, Chris Bieneman
via llvm-dev wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:99120307-37D3-427F-81D1-14BC9C22FEBF@apple.com" type="cite" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class="">
<div class="">Moving to llvm-dev (I think this has gone a bit
further than a patch review discussion)</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">In hindsight I probably should have explained more
of my thinking on this with the patch, or done an RFC on
llvm-dev to start with. I’l do that now, and answer the
questions along the way. I sent a separate email discussing
Justin’s patch review feedback.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">In the build system today there is no strong
distinction between ‘projects’ and ‘tools’. There are a few
subtle differences, but I’m not sure any of them really matter.
The differences are:</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">(1) The projects directory is always configured,
tools can be disabled using LLVM_INCLUDE_TOOLS=Off (projects and
tools can both be individually disabled too)</div>
<div class="">(2) Projects are configured before tools, so tools
can rely on targets being created for projects (we don’t really
use this, and anywhere we are is probably a bug)</div>
<div class="">(3) Some projects have special handling. For example
test-suite isn’t actually treated as a project, it has special
handling in LLVM/CMakeLists.txt:727, and Compiler-RT is handled
by clang if you set LLVM_BUILD_EXTERNAL_COMPILER_RT=On.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">With this in mind I was thinking about the general
usability of our build system. The distinction between a project
and a tool is not very clear. At a high level I see three
different use cases that are covered by our current projects
& tools directories.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">(1) Projects that are configured with LLVM</div>
<div class="">(2) Runtime projects that should be configured using
the just-built tools</div>
<div class="">(3) The LLVM test-suite, which is really just
external tests that should be configured and run with the
just-built tools</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">My proposal is that we make the tools subdirectory
the *only* place for projects that fall into category 1. I don’t
think there is any technical reason to drop an in-tree project
into projects over tools today, and I think we migrating people
who are doing that away from it should be easy.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Second I want to add a “runtimes” directory to LLVM
to cover case 2 (see D20992). The idea behind this is to use
common code in LLVM to support building runtimes. This will
allow the full LLVM toolchain to be visible during
configuration. I will abstract this functionality into an
installed CMake module so that Clang can use it for out-of-tree
clang builds.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Lastly we need to give the test-suite a new home.
I’m not super concerned with where we do that. It could be under
tests, it could just be at the root of the LLVM directory. I
don’t think it matters too much because it is a one-off.
Thoughts welcome.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">My proposed patch makes the runtimes directory work
for Compiler-RT, but it doesn’t yet handle libcxxabi, libcxx and
libunwind. There is some special case handling between libcxxabi
and libcxx that will need to be handled to make the dependencies
work between the two, and I still need to work that out.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">If we want to go with this proposal I envision the
transition being multi-staged:</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">(1) Adding the new functionality, getting it up and
fully working for all runtime projects - this will involve
changes to runtime projects</div>
<div class="">(2) Work with bot maintainers to migrate bots, and
fix any issues that come up</div>
<div class="">(3) Add support for a new secondary location for the
test-suite</div>
<div class="">(4) Set a date for removing the projects directory,
post patches including updated documentation</div>
<div class="">(5) Remove the projects directory entirely</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Thoughts?</div>
<div class="">-Chris</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Jun 8, 2016, at 6:59 PM, Chandler Carruth
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:chandlerc@gmail.com" class="">chandlerc@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size:
12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans:
auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class="">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="">On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 4:39 PM
Justin Bogner via llvm-commits <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:llvm-commits@lists.llvm.org" class=""></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:llvm-commits@lists.llvm.org">llvm-commits@lists.llvm.org</a>>
wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<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;">Chris
Bieneman <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:beanz@apple.com" target="_blank" class="">beanz@apple.com</a>> writes:<br class="">
> beanz created this revision.<br class="">
> beanz added reviewers: chandlerc, bogner.<br class="">
> beanz added a subscriber: llvm-commits.<br class="">
><br class="">
> There are a few LLVM projects that produce
runtime libraries. Ideally<br class="">
> runtime libraries should be built differently
than other projects,<br class="">
> specifically they should be built using the
just-built toolchain.<br class="">
><br class="">
> There is support for building compiler-rt in
this way from the clang<br class="">
> build. Moving this logic into the LLVM build is
interesting because it<br class="">
> provides a simpler way to extend the just-built
toolchain to include<br class="">
> LLD and the LLVM object file tools.<br class="">
><br class="">
> Once this functionality is better fleshed out
and tested we’ll want to<br class="">
> encapsulate it in a module that can be used for
clang standalone<br class="">
> builds, and we’ll want to make it the default
way to build compiler-rt.<br class="">
><br class="">
> With this patch applied there is no immediate
change in the build.<br class="">
> Moving compiler-rt out from llvm/projects into
llvm/runtimes enables<br class="">
> the functionality.<br class="">
<br class="">
This seems reasonable, but I am a little worried
about how transitioning<br class="">
to the new system will work. Will everyone have to
move their<br class="">
compiler-rt checkout? Will we continue to support
compiler-rt in either<br class="">
place? Both of these are workable, but neither is
great. Thoughts?<br class="">
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I share your concerns, but I also kind
of like the direction this is going.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">But there is a higher-level meta-point:
do we want to keep the 'projects' directory *at
all*.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Every single resident of it I can think
of except for the test-suite is either dead
(dragonegg) or a runtime library.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I think we should either have all the
build-integrated projects in a single 'projects'
directory (including LLD and Clang), or we should
have none of them and use more domain relevant
organization (today "tools", you're adding
"runtimes", maybe we move the test-suite to go under
one of the test directories).</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I think we should have a consistent plan
here before moving stuff. But once we have it, I
think we shouldn't be afraid of re-organizing stuff
to make more sense, and just work to get folks to
update their checkouts.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">-Chandler</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<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;"><br class="">
> This code has a few improvements over the
method provided by<br class="">
> LLVM_BUILD_EXTERNAL_COMPILER_RT. Specifically
the sub-ninja command is<br class="">
> always invoked, so changes to compiler-rt
source files will get built<br class="">
> properly, so this patch can be used for
iterative development with<br class="">
> just-built tools.<br class="">
><br class="">
><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://reviews.llvm.org/D20992" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class=""></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://reviews.llvm.org/D20992">http://reviews.llvm.org/D20992</a><br class="">
><br class="">
> Files:<br class="">
> CMakeLists.txt<br class="">
> cmake/modules/LLVMExternalProjectUtils.cmake<br class="">
> runtimes/CMakeLists.txt<br class="">
><br class="">
> Index: runtimes/CMakeLists.txt<br class="">
>
===================================================================<br class="">
> --- /dev/null<br class="">
> +++ runtimes/CMakeLists.txt<br class="">
> @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@<br class="">
> +include(LLVMExternalProjectUtils)<br class="">
> +<br class="">
> +# Discover the projects that use CMake in the
subdirectories.<br class="">
> +# Note that explicit cmake invocation is
required every time a new project is<br class="">
> +# added or removed.<br class="">
> +<br class="">
> +add_custom_target(runtimes)<br class="">
> +<br class="">
> +file(GLOB entries *)<br class="">
> +foreach(entry ${entries})<br class="">
> + if(IS_DIRECTORY ${entry} AND EXISTS
${entry}/CMakeLists.txt)<br class="">
> + get_filename_component(projName ${entry}
NAME)<br class="">
> + llvm_ExternalProject_Add(${projName}
${entry} USE_TOOLCHAIN)<br class="">
> + add_dependencies(runtimes ${projName})<br class="">
> + endif()<br class="">
> +endforeach(entry)<br class="">
> Index:
cmake/modules/LLVMExternalProjectUtils.cmake<br class="">
>
===================================================================<br class="">
> ---
cmake/modules/LLVMExternalProjectUtils.cmake<br class="">
> +++
cmake/modules/LLVMExternalProjectUtils.cmake<br class="">
> @@ -29,7 +29,8 @@<br class="">
> # Extra targets in the subproject to
generate targets for<br class="">
> # )<br class="">
> function(llvm_ExternalProject_Add name
source_dir)<br class="">
> - cmake_parse_arguments(ARG
"USE_TOOLCHAIN;EXCLUDE_FROM_ALL;NO_INSTALL"<br class="">
> + cmake_parse_arguments(ARG<br class="">
> +
"USE_TOOLCHAIN;EXCLUDE_FROM_ALL;NO_INSTALL;ALWAYS_CLEAN"<br class="">
> "SOURCE_DIR"<br class="">
>
"CMAKE_ARGS;TOOLCHAIN_TOOLS;RUNTIME_LIBRARIES;DEPENDS;EXTRA_TARGETS"
${ARGN})<br class="">
> canonicalize_tool_name(${name} nameCanon)<br class="">
> @@ -52,6 +53,10 @@<br class="">
> endif()<br class="">
> endforeach()<br class="">
><br class="">
> + if(ARG_ALWAYS_CLEAN)<br class="">
> + set(always_clean clean)<br class="">
> + endif()<br class="">
> +<br class="">
> list(FIND TOOLCHAIN_TOOLS clang FOUND_CLANG)<br class="">
> if(FOUND_CLANG GREATER -1)<br class="">
> set(CLANG_IN_TOOLCHAIN On)<br class="">
> @@ -135,6 +140,14 @@<br class="">
> CMAKE_ARGS ${${nameCanon}_CMAKE_ARGS}<br class="">
> ${compiler_args}<br class="">
>
-DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=${CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX}<br class="">
> +
-DLLVM_CONFIG_PATH=${LLVM_RUNTIME_OUTPUT_INTDIR}/llvm-config<br class="">
> +
-DLLVM_LIBRARY_OUTPUT_INTDIR=${LLVM_LIBRARY_OUTPUT_INTDIR}<br class="">
> +
-DLLVM_RUNTIME_OUTPUT_INTDIR=${LLVM_RUNTIME_OUTPUT_INTDIR}<br class="">
> +
-DLLVM_LIBDIR_SUFFIX=${LLVM_LIBDIR_SUFFIX}<br class="">
> +
-DLLVM_ENABLE_WERROR=${LLVM_ENABLE_WERROR}<br class="">
> +
-DPACKAGE_VERSION=${PACKAGE_VERSION}<br class="">
> +
-DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=${CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE}<br class="">
> +
-DCMAKE_MAKE_PROGRAM=${CMAKE_MAKE_PROGRAM}<br class="">
<br class="">
How did you decide which variables need to be passed
through like this?<br class="">
The set seems somewhat arbitrary, but I may be
missing something<br class="">
obvious.<br class="">
<br class="">
> ${ARG_CMAKE_ARGS}<br class="">
> ${PASSTHROUGH_VARIABLES}<br class="">
> INSTALL_COMMAND ""<br class="">
> @@ -152,7 +165,7 @@<br class="">
> ExternalProject_Add_Step(${name}
force-rebuild<br class="">
> COMMAND ${run_build}<br class="">
> COMMENT "Forcing rebuild of ${name}"<br class="">
> - DEPENDEES configure clean<br class="">
> + DEPENDEES configure ${always_clean}<br class="">
<br class="">
I'm not sure I understand what this does. If I had
to guess I'd say that<br class="">
when ALWAYS_CLEAN is passed the rebuild of the
external project always<br class="">
invokes clean first, but if it's not passed we'll
just invoke the<br class="">
external build and allow it to be incremental if
appropriate. Is that<br class="">
right?<br class="">
<br class="">
> DEPENDS ${ALWAYS_REBUILD} ${ARG_DEPENDS}
${TOOLCHAIN_BINS}<br class="">
> ${cmake_3_4_USES_TERMINAL} )<br class="">
> endif()<br class="">
> Index: CMakeLists.txt<br class="">
>
===================================================================<br class="">
> --- CMakeLists.txt<br class="">
> +++ CMakeLists.txt<br class="">
> @@ -720,6 +720,8 @@<br class="">
> add_subdirectory(tools)<br class="">
> endif()<br class="">
><br class="">
> +add_subdirectory(runtimes)<br class="">
> +<br class="">
> if( LLVM_INCLUDE_EXAMPLES )<br class="">
> add_subdirectory(examples)<br class="">
> endif()<br class="">
> @@ -730,7 +732,8 @@<br class="">
> llvm_ExternalProject_Add(test-suite
${LLVM_MAIN_SRC_DIR}/projects/test-suite<br class="">
> USE_TOOLCHAIN<br class="">
> EXCLUDE_FROM_ALL<br class="">
> - NO_INSTALL)<br class="">
> + NO_INSTALL<br class="">
> + ALWAYS_CLEAN)<br class="">
> endif()<br class="">
> add_subdirectory(test)<br class="">
> add_subdirectory(unittests)<br class="">
><br class="">
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
llvm-commits mailing list<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:llvm-commits@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank" class="">llvm-commits@lists.llvm.org</a><br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits</a></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
<br class="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br class="">
<pre wrap="" class="">_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
</pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">LLVM Developers mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" class="">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br class="">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev<br class=""></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>