[cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] RFC: Dropping support for building sanitizers with autotools

[Anna Zaks]

> On Feb 17, 2015, at 4:00 PM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Anna Zaks <ganna at apple.com <mailto:ganna at apple.com>> wrote:
> Unfortunately, we do rely on the Autotools to build for darwin. 
> 
> The lack of proper testing is very unfortunate. In the future, we will either drop the dependency on Makefile/autoconf build or add the support for sanitizer testing.
> 
> Sorry, for some reason I had the impression that you're also more interested in CMake buiild :-/. Only now I noticed that recent Kuba's patches about -isysroot fix both makefile and CMake
> build system (and he's probably not very happy about it).
> 
> I believe the effort required to port sanitizer unit tests to autotools is not worth it, and it's better to spend that time migrating the release tools to CMake. Keeping two build systems "working"
> was and is a manageable, but unpleasant burden. Providing a good test coverage for two runtime versions is hard, and keeping two runtime versions "equivalent" (built with the same compiler flags)
> is close to impossible.

I agree. The solution where we only rely on cmake build would be the best option.

>  
> I understand that removing autotools support right now breaks your integration. What if we just delete autotools support from all Linux builds?
> 

Yes. That is fine by me.

> Speaking of autotools support, I should lay out the reason why I raised the question of removing it last week. We plan to make intrusive changes to ASan and UBSan library layout:
> 1) embed UBSan runtime into ASan to solve various initialization and integration problems of using ASan+UBSan (fixing http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=21112 <http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=21112>)
> 2) make UBSan runtime standalone, and forbid to use it with another sanitizers except for ASan.
> Unfortunately, it means changing a bunch of build rules in *both* CMake and makefile build.
> 
> Ideally, I would be happy to transfer ownership of current autotools build on Darwin to you, and ask for help in implementing/testing necessary changes on Mac OS X side :)
> At the moment we don't even have a live buildbot running autotools-built ASan on Mac, so you're in much better shape to catch and notice regressions.
> 

We do have public buildbots set up for OS X:

Here is one that is testing a makefile build. There are probably others in different configurations.
http://lab.llvm.org:8080/green/view/Clang/job/clang-stage1-configure-RA_build/ <http://lab.llvm.org:8080/green/view/Clang/job/clang-stage1-configure-RA_build/>

We also have a buildbot running cmake tests on OS X:
http://lab.llvm.org:8080/green/view/All/job/clang-stage1-cmake-RA_check/ <http://lab.llvm.org:8080/green/view/All/job/clang-stage1-cmake-RA_check/>

> 
> Anna.
> 
>> On Feb 17, 2015, at 10:54 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com <mailto:kcc at google.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> +1 (in case you still need mine)
>> 
>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com <mailto:vonosmas at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>> 
>> TL;DR I plan to do subj unless anyone objects.
>> 
>> Autotools support for building sanitizers was never complete, is a proper subset of CMake capabilities, and the gap between the features of CMake build and autotools is quickly increasing:
>> 1) OS: autotools support Linux, Mac OS X and Android; CMake also supports FreeBSD and Windows.
>> 2) Architectures: autotools support i386 and x86_64, CMake also supports MIPS, ARM/AArch64, PowerPC).
>> 3) Library variants: autotools don't support building shared ASan runtime on Linux.
>> 4 [!!!]) Autotools build doesn't have *any* support for building and running tests.
>> 5) The sets of compiler flags we use to build runtimes are different in two builds, and are hard to kept in sync.
>> 
>> Because of (4), sanitizer runtimes built with autotools are severely undertested, and maintaining two different build systems is a burden I would like to get rid of. Now seems to be a good time for that: we've cut off 3.6 release branch, and Hans assures me that 3.7 release process will use CMake.
>> 
>> Are there existing users of configure/make that want sanitizers to be available in their build? Are there other arguments for keeping the autotools build "working" I'm missing?
>> 
>> -- 
>> Alexey Samsonov
>> vonosmas at gmail.com <mailto:vonosmas at gmail.com>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu>         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu <http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/>
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Alexey Samsonov
> vonosmas at gmail.com <mailto:vonosmas at gmail.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20150217/cc4e8694/attachment.html>