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

[James Y Knight via cfe-dev]

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
wrote:

> Your use case is not what people are used to expect, so any change in
> that direction is not "trivial". Beyond code changes, there are other
> architectures and tools to think about.


I'm very confused by the statement "is not what people are used to expect"?
Being able to configure the default abi/isa for your system, via changing
compile-time options of gcc, is what people are used to doing, right? So I
thought my use case exactly *is* what people are used to expecting?

For five years this issue has been completely ignored, and now
> suddenly there's a lot of pressure to get it working ASAP. While I
> welcome people noticing one of my first proposals to LLVM, that was
> meant to fix the driver, not make it even more unpalatable.


I have no personal immediate need to solve this problem, but I keep seeing
a lot of different people dancing around the same issue, so I do actually
think it's about time to solve it even if nobody has done so for 5 years. I
also wasn't paying much attention to llvm 5 years ago, so I don't really
know what people said or did back then. :) So, yes, let's fix it now, while
people are actually interested and talking about it.

There are other threads that also expose some changes that need to be
> done in the libraries, so we need to take them all into consideration
> before taking any rushed decision.


I don't know at all what you mean by that.


Anyways, sure, writing a python/perl/shell clang driver-driver would be one
way to demonstrate the viability of the idea. But, so would writing a
change to the actual driver. Again, I don't think the actual code change
here will be very complicated.

The main thing I thought would be a hurdle was having people agree that any
sort of local configurability of the clang driver was a good idea. But that
seems to actually not be controversial. So, what's needed seems just a
matter of hashing out some details. And (maybe I'm missing something
fundamental?) it doesn't seem like there's even a huge amount of details to
worry about here.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20151015/b4420683/attachment.html>