[Openmp-dev] (no subject)

[Jack Howarth]

Hal,
    Also note that they are replicating the build from build.pl down to the
exact order of source file compilation. So the question arises, to what
degree is is it invalid to even glance at their Cmakelist.txt for overall
ideas on how to do this. Considering that they are simply emitting the same
build commands as build.pl (to which we already have license), I imagine we
would have to code in a very similar manner even if done from scratch,
 i.e., use instances of add_custom_command to manually emit the same
build.pl commands. There probably aren't that many ways to code that in
cmake.
               Jack


On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Jack Howarth <
howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hal,
>     Even if that is problematic, starting over is fairly straight-forward.
> Their CMakelists.txt is simply a directly repetition of the commands
> emitted from the build as done by build.pl. So if they are difficult
> about it, just take a printout of the output for the current build with
> 'make compiler=clang" and code the Cmakelist.txt from that. If you look
> carefully, you will see that they are replicating this down to the exact
> order of the parameters on the compiler calls. It is very difficult to see
> how that could be intellectual property in any fashion since replicating
> the output of the build.pl currently in llvm.org's openmp results in the
> same ordering. Note that their files are only a crude starting point and
> nowhere near what we will need for llvm.
>                Jack
>
>
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
>
>> Jack,
>>
>> Before you go too far with this, do we have Pathscale's explicit
>> contribution of their build files? (I've cc'd C. Bergstrom so that he can
>> comment directly).
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Hal
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Jack Howarth" <howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com>
>> > To: openmp-dev at dcs-maillist2.engr.illinois.edu
>> > Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 5:28:33 PM
>> > Subject: [Openmp-dev] (no subject)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Attached is a first pass at modifying the cmakefiles from
>> > https://github.com/pathscale/openmprtl/blob/master/itt/libomp_oss to
>> > build openmp. I noticed that the existing build.pl doesn't actually
>> > build a fat shared library on darwin. The attached changes can does
>> > this in an indirect fashion with…
>> >
>> >
>> > % cd runtime
>> > % mkdir build_32
>> > % cd build_32
>> > % cmake -DARCH="32" ..
>> > % make VERBOSE=1
>> > % cd ..
>> > % mkdir build_32e
>> > % cmake -DARCH="32e" ..
>> > % make VERBOSE=1
>> > % cd ..
>> > % lipo ./build_32/src/libiomp5.dylib ./build_32e/src/libiomp5.dylib
>> > -create -o libiomp5.dylib
>> > % file libiomp5.dylib
>> >
>> > libiomp5.dylib: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures
>> > libiomp5.dylib (for architecture x86_64): Mach-O 64-bit dynamically
>> > linked shared library x86_64
>> > libiomp5.dylib (for architecture i386): Mach-O dynamically linked
>> > shared library i386
>> >
>> >
>> > Normally we could do this in cmake by passing '-arch i386 -arch
>> > x86_64' but use of assembly code in the build gums that up.
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Openmp-dev mailing list
>> > Openmp-dev at dcs-maillist2.engr.illinois.edu
>> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/openmp-dev
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Hal Finkel
>> Assistant Computational Scientist
>> Leadership Computing Facility
>> Argonne National Laboratory
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/openmp-dev/attachments/20140530/8875f3e7/attachment.html>