[libcxx-dev] Requiring monorepo layout when building libc++ and libc++abi
Petr Hosek via libcxx-dev
libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Mar 11 14:47:01 PDT 2020
Including Chris and Shoaib in case they're not on libcxx-dev. I think this
discussion might be more suited for llvm-dev now that we're discussing
This is something we've discussed during the round table about build and
CMake at the last devmtg. The idea was to introduce a new top-level
directory, e.g. cmake, to hold all the shared build infrastructure. Today,
there are a number of cmake/Modules across compiler-rt, libcxx, libcxxabi,
libunwind that started as pure copies have since diverged which makes
changes particularly painful.
Regarding compiler-rt, the tentative plan is to break it down into (at
least) two subprojects: one that doesn't have any dependencies which today
would be builtins and crt, and another one that would contain runtimes that
rely on libcxxabi/libcxx which would be all sanitizers and probably
everything else. This would also allow build simplification and help with
ordering issues we have today.
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 2:42 PM Eric Fiselier via libcxx-dev <
libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 5:39 PM Sterling Augustine via libcxx-dev <
> libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 2:21 PM Eric Fiselier <ericwf at google.com> wrote:
>>> I'm fully in support of requiring the monorepo setup.
>>> I would like to go a step further, and unify libc++, libc++abi, and
>>> libunwind to share the same set of CMake configuration options.
>> Compiler-rt too.
> Compiler-rt is a weird one. Because it builds multiple versions of libc++
> as dependencies.
> I'm not sure all of it so neatly fits under this umbrella, but I know
> compiler-rt could benefit from tighter integration.
>> libcxx-dev mailing list
>> libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org
> libcxx-dev mailing list
> libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the libcxx-dev