[libcxx-dev] Requiring monorepo layout when building libc++ and libc++abi

[Louis Dionne via libcxx-dev]

+EricWF

> On Mar 11, 2020, at 14:07, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Agreed. Let's talk about any code sharing ahead of time though if you wouldn't mind :)

There's a few candidates:
- CMake functions that could be used by both
- the atomic_support.h header copy-pasted into libc++

I think EricWF has a laundry list of technical debt we've accumulated because of this.

Eric (echristo@), is opening a Phab review with those code sharing changes sufficient, or did you mean something additional by "talk about code sharing ahead of time"?

Louis

> 
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 10:50 AM James Y Knight via libcxx-dev <libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> +1. Any simplifications and cleanups of the buildsystem SGTM.
> 
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 1:28 PM Louis Dionne via libcxx-dev <libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> Hey folks,
> 
> Now that the monorepo is the standard, would everybody be fine with requiring both libc++ and libc++abi sources to be accessible in a monorepo-like layout when building either of them? In other words, in order to build either libc++ or libc++abi, we would require the following layout:
> 
>    <root>/libcxx
>    <root>/libcxxabi
> 
> I suggest not requiring the rest of the monorepo, simply because it wouldn't be useful, and I know of at least one use case that would break.
> 
> The benefit of adopting this assumption is that all the search for libcxx and libcxxabi sources can be removed, simplifying the build quite a bit. Eventually, we can even start sharing stuff between the two sub-projects. If we go forward with this, I'll be happy to make the clean ups I mention.
> 
> Cheers,
> Louis

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/libcxx-dev/attachments/20200311/79b11753/attachment-0001.html>