[cfe-dev] Small patches to allow fully independent clang/llvm/compiler-rt/libc++

[Jonathan Roelofs via cfe-dev]

On 10/14/15 2:38 PM, cbergstrom at pathscale.com wrote:
> So let me make sure I understand everyone against my patch..
>
> #1 You are furiously against supporting clang which uses
> compiler-rt, libc++ etc by default? Compiler-rt and the ability to
> build a non-gnu toolchain by DEFAULT is such a worthless idea that it
> has no value at all, right?

No. We're not against having compiler-rt as the default. What we are
against is _how_ these particular patches achieve that.

>
> #2 we love flags and can't get enough of them.. ---- I don't know
> why anyone even talks about QA or runtime options.

We're talking about it because QA burden is a legitimate concern, and 
runtime options are one possible solution.

To make that latter point more concrete, I'm suggesting that you rework 
your patches so that you use triples like: i686-pathscale-linux-gnu, and 
then you can set the default runtime lib based on the vendor part of 
that triple, i.e. 'pathscale'.

>
> My patch does NOT or should not introduce new stuff.

By definition, it does.

> If your bot doesn't build compiler-rt today.. well it won't be
> enabled tomorrow.. I'm not proposing to remove flags or driver
> capability..

Ok. That's tangential though, and doesn't address any of the concerns 
we've raised about this patch set.

> I'm proposing to allow a compile time option to set defaults..
>
> Please stick to discussing this very specific issue. ‎Apologies if
> my tone is off

It might help to remember that these criticisms of this patch set are 
not criticisms of you, nor your character, nor your goals.  We're 
discussing technical merits here, and nobody is "out to get" anyone 
else... so let's keep it friendly! :)


Jon


-- 
Jon Roelofs
jonathan at codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded