<div dir="auto"><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 8:19 PM Eric Astor via llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>I *am* a Googler, though not directly involved with the teams that maintain the internal LLVM build. I happen to be a big fan of Bazel - and mostly build LLVM with the internal Bazel build, rather than the external CMake, because the better caching and remote-build-farm support is such an enormous help. (Also, I find the CMake build & build options kind of impenetrable.) However, I'm writing this particular email on my personal account, with personal resources, well past the close of business; my Google hat is firmly on the shelf, and I'm speaking as just an individual contributor.<br></div><div><br></div><div>When I first started contributing to LLVM, <b>I was confused by the GN build's existence</b>. I didn't understand who was supposed to maintain it, whether I should use it, what the benefits were... you name it.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I agree with some of the first comments on this thread. I'd suggest that we set aside the question of contributing Bazel BUILD files into the LLVM repository for now, and start by proposing a general policy around alternate/unsupported build systems in relation to the main repository. (GN can have an exception if needed.) The fact that the GN build is basically working, and doesn't confuse too many people, is a data point - but going from 1 alternate build system to 2 seems like a good point to pause and set an actual set of constraints and goals. Eventually, someone may want a third, and we should know what the guidelines are so we don't hash out the decision from scratch again!<br></div><div><br></div><div>I don't think I could draft the RFC in question - I don't have enough experience with the community yet to judge what's really needed - but I'd be glad to help out with it. The idea should be to minimize the cost (to nearly zero) for both experienced LLVM contributors and new LLVM contributors. A few requirements I'd suggest, mostly put together from this thread:</div><div><ul><li>CMake should be able to build (and test!) everything the alternate build system can, at all times.<br></li><li>There must be a clear group who want to maintain the alternate build system.</li><li>
The alternate build system's files should be isolated in a separate directory, with a README explaining that this is an alternate build system for LLVM, maintained by its own smaller community - and is not supported by the community at large.</li><li>The alternate build system must have independent buildbots, which do not email the larger community; people can opt into being emailed about this. (And should, if they're contributing to it!)</li><li>If the buildbots are red for an extended time, we should put out a call for maintainers to fix the issues; if not answered in a reasonable time, we shouldn't be afraid to delete the alternate build system.<br></li></ul></div><div>I <b>do </b>also see the argument for the git submodule approach. It looks like a .gitmodules file would theoretically let a repository of Bazel BUILD files specify exactly which LLVM commit it currently tracks - and you could fetch the corresponding updates in both with a single command. I think that addresses the main point I noticed brought up on this side of the argument. Any RFC here probably needs to present pros & cons of both approaches. We'll need to hash those out in general discussion before people start looking for consensus, so people understand what they're deciding on.</div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Just one note on this... </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But first, I am also a googler, and while I use bazel a lot, I don't see it being any more than a niche anytime soon for a mainstream project such as LLVM that has a wide deployment base, many variants/layers, cross compilation, build/install splits, etc. Bazel just doesn't scale to the level of differentiation and customization that is exploited for this scale of an OSS project in the wild. It was born in a much less diverse environment and carries that legacy forward (and seems like it will continue to do so for the foreseeable future). And I say that as someone who likely has enough years of experience in it that I could probably bend it in those directions if it came down to it... But wouldn't consider it a valuable use of time.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">From what I can tell, people are successful/happy using bazel when their needs are not so diverse, and when they value org-scale consistency and scalability of their eng teams. It's not the only way to get that, for sure. Just a way that some choose, and some of those also choose/need to take LLVM as a dependency. (I often find it too restrictive and choose differently myself)</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">That interpretation would lead to an answer to "why would we do this?": because it would help those people who use both bazel and LLVM to have an easier time living at head with LLVM as a dependency. Most of those people didn't actively choose bazel, and are in the same kind of mode of trying to minimize their costs for a large piece of dev infra that isn't core to their business/mission... Same as LLVM with cmake. Google internally and Google aligned open source projects certainly fall into that category. I can't speak for others.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">As for the costs, I could go either way on whether this should live in the monorepo. Even segmented into its own directory, the argument regarding the cost of confusion/churn seems credible to me (even if the cost is deemed worth it, I do see it as a cost that has merit to consider).</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">On to my note...</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">One other cost to consider is that if we have this outside of the monorepo, and outside of the LLVM organization, we have a contribution barrier up which firmly entrenches this as a "Google thing", and I don't think that is a good thing for LLVM as a project... There will be a different committer pool, different policy enforcement (such as accepting Google's CLA), different comms channels, etc. Projects, both OSS and private, outside of Google do use both bazel and LLVM, and it would be best, in my opinion, if they could source and contribute all of the LLVM bits from the LLVM org, including second tier build support, where it exists (and we should clearly cordone this off as some kind of second tier).</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">In my mind, the best outcomes here involve deciding on a least harmful place to maintain these second tier build setups, and my preference would be that they be aligned with the llvm community/org vs on an island. I don't have an opinion on whether this lands in the monorepo or a secondary repo for second tier build setups. But I would like to see one of those outcomes vs keeping this Google aligned/owned.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>- Eric<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 10:40 PM Eric Christopher via llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:<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 dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 9:44 PM Johannes Doerfert via llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">(see below)<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/28/20 6:18 PM, Geoffrey Martin-Noble via llvm-dev wrote:<br>
> Hi all,<br>
><br>
> tl;dr: We'd like to contribute Bazel BUILD files for LLVM and MLIR in a<br>
> side-directory in the monorepo, similar to the gn build.<br>
><br>
> Some of us have been working on open-source Bazel BUILD files for the <br>
LLVM<br>
> Project. You may have seen us hanging out in the #build-systems discord<br>
> channel. As you may know, Google uses Bazel internally and has <br>
maintained a<br>
> Bazel BUILD of LLVM for years. Especially with the introduction of MLIR,<br>
> we've got more and more OSS projects with a Bazel BUILD depending on LLVM<br>
> (e.g. IREE <<a href="https://github.com/google/iree" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/google/iree</a>> and TensorFlow<br>
> <<a href="https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow</a>>). We're also not the only ones<br>
> using Bazel: e.g. PlaidML also has a Bazel BUILD of LLVM that they've <br>
borrowed<br>
> from TF<br>
> <<a href="https://github.com/plaidml/plaidml/blob/master/vendor/llvm/llvm.BUILD" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/plaidml/plaidml/blob/master/vendor/llvm/llvm.BUILD</a>>.<br>
> Each of these projects has to jump through some weird hoops to keep their<br>
> version of the Bazel BUILD files in sync with the code, which <br>
requires some<br>
> fragile combination of scripts and human intervention. Instead, we'd like<br>
> to move general-purpose Bazel BUILD files into the LLVM Project monorepo.<br>
> We expect to follow the model of the GN build where these will be<br>
> maintained by interested contributors rather than expecting the general<br>
> community to maintain them.<br>
><br>
> To facilitate and test this we've been developing a standalone repository<br>
> that just has the Bazel BUILD files. It symlinks together the directory<br>
> trees on top of a submodule as we would need in the monorepo to to avoid<br>
> in-tree BUILD files. The configuration is at<br>
> <a href="https://github.com/google/llvm-bazel" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/google/llvm-bazel</a>. We now have those in a good <br>
place and<br>
> think they would be useful upstream.<br>
><br>
> # Details<br>
><br>
> ## What<br>
><br>
> Bazel BUILD files for the LLVM, MLIR, and Clang (PR out for review<br>
> <<a href="https://github.com/google/llvm-bazel/pull/72" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/google/llvm-bazel/pull/72</a>>) subprojects, potentially<br>
> expanding to others, as needed. Basically everything currently at<br>
> <a href="https://github.com/google/llvm-bazel" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/google/llvm-bazel</a>.<br>
><br>
> ## Where<br>
><br>
> In <a href="https://github.com/google/llvm-bazel" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/google/llvm-bazel</a> the BUILD files live in a single<br>
> directory tree matching the structure of the overall llvm-project<br>
> directory. For users, @llvm-project is a single Bazel repository<br>
> <br>
<<a href="https://docs.bazel.build/versions/master/build-ref.html#repositories" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://docs.bazel.build/versions/master/build-ref.html#repositories</a>> that<br>
> includes both LLVM and MLIR subprojects. To maintain this structure, we<br>
> would probably want to put a `bazel` directory in the monorepo's utils<br>
> directory <<a href="https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/tree/master/utils" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/tree/master/utils</a>>, which<br>
> currently only contains a directory for arcanist. This is different from<br>
> gn, which is under the LLVM subproject's utils directory<br>
> <<a href="https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/tree/master/llvm/utils/gn" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/tree/master/llvm/utils/gn</a>>. We <br>
could<br>
> similarly put the Bazel BUILD files under llvm/utils/bazel but have <br>
them be<br>
> for the entire llvm project (the subsets that are supported). This seems<br>
> like an odd structure to me, but I know that the CMake build for LLVM<br>
> also builds<br>
> the other subprojects<br>
> <br>
<<a href="https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/529ac33197f6/llvm/tools/CMakeLists.txt#L34-L41" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/529ac33197f6/llvm/tools/CMakeLists.txt#L34-L41</a>>,<br>
> so maybe this would be preferable.<br>
><br>
> Alternatively we could split each subproject into a separate Bazel<br>
> repository and put the Bazel build files under each subproject. I think<br>
> this fragments the configuration of the BUILD without much benefit.<br>
><br>
> ## Configurations<br>
><br>
> We currently have configurations for Linux GCC and Clang, MacOS GCC and<br>
> Clang, and Windows MSVC. Support for other configurations can be added<br>
> as-desired, but supporting all possible LLVM build configurations is not<br>
> the goal.<br>
><br>
> ## Support<br>
><br>
> Support would be similar to the gn build. Contributors could optionally<br>
> update the Bazel BUILD files as part of their patches, but would be under<br>
> no obligation to do so.<br>
><br>
> ## Preserving History<br>
><br>
> I don't *think* the history of llvm-bazel is interesting enough to try to<br>
> merge it into the monorepo and I was planning to submit this as a single<br>
> patch, but please let me know if you disagree.<br>
><br>
> ## Benefits to the community<br>
><br>
> -<br>
><br>
> Projects that depend on LLVM and use the Bazel build system can avoid<br>
> duplicating fragile effort. We'll spend more time contributing to LLVM<br>
> instead :-D<br>
> -<br>
><br>
> Bazel is stricter than CMake in many ways (e.g. it requires that even<br>
> header dependencies be declared) and can catch layering issues <br>
very easily.<br>
> There's even an optional layering_check feature we could turn on <br>
if its use<br>
> would benefit the community. (though currently the existing <br>
problematic<br>
> layering makes it a burden to maintain on our own). Even without that<br>
> additional check, as I've been keeping the Bazel build green, I've <br>
found<br>
> and fixed a number of layering issues in the past couple weeks (e.g.<br>
> <a href="https://reviews.llvm.org/rGb49787df9a" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://reviews.llvm.org/rGb49787df9a</a><br>
> <<a href="https://reviews.llvm.org/rGb49787df9a535f03761c340dca7ec3ec1155133d" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://reviews.llvm.org/rGb49787df9a535f03761c340dca7ec3ec1155133d</a>><br>
> and <a href="https://reviews.llvm.org/rGc17ae2916c" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://reviews.llvm.org/rGc17ae2916c</a><br>
> <<a href="https://reviews.llvm.org/rGc17ae2916ccf45a0c1717bd5f11598cc4fff342a" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://reviews.llvm.org/rGc17ae2916ccf45a0c1717bd5f11598cc4fff342a</a>>).<br>
><br>
><br>
> Here's a patch <<a href="https://reviews.llvm.org/D90352" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://reviews.llvm.org/D90352</a>> adding the Bazel build<br>
> system. It's basically just `cp -r llvm-bazel/llvm-bazel<br>
> llvm-project/utils/bazel`.<br>
<br>
Doesn't the last paragraph mean all benefits derived from this can be<br>
described either as:<br>
(1) users do not need to clone the llvm-bazel git repo but get the<br>
files in llvm-project, or<br>
(2) "interested contributors" could send patches to llvm-project<br>
instead of llvm-bazel to update the bazel build.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Absolutely. This could happen. The main reason behind this is to make integating among a number of llvm based projects that use bazel (TF and TF-based projects primarily, though it sounds like FB's internal process would be helped as their system is similar to bazel).</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">
TBH, I have no interest in using bazel nor anything against it being<br>
merged per se. I just find it curious that we merge another build system<br>
"at no cost" for the community (I think I picked that up in the thread<br>
but I might have imagined the phrasing). I mean, there is always "a<br>
cost"* so it boils down to determine if the benefit is worth it.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>As far as I can think the cost is...</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">
<br>
* i.a., people will assume we (=the LLVM community) maintain(s) a bazel<br>
build, which can certainly be a benefit but also a cost", e.g., when<br>
the build is not properly maintained, support is scarce, etc. and<br>
emails come in complaining about it (not thinking of prior examples<br>
here.)<br><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>... this. If the system becomes a source of problems or user complaints then I think it's absolutely reasonable to remove it.</div><div><br></div><div>-eric</div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>