[libcxx-dev] [llvm-dev] Upcoming change with how libc++, libc++abi and libunwind are being built

Thu Oct 28 11:40:25 PDT 2021

On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 6:35 AM Louis Dionne via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 4:22 AM Andrzej Warzynski <
> andrzej.warzynski at arm.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Louis,
>>
>> This sounds like a huge simplification, thank you!
>>
>> With this change, will we still be able to use LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS to
>> build libc++, libc++abi and libunwind? IIUC, you are disabling this
>> option entirely, right? Will CMake warn us about the
>> incorrect/deprecated usage? Should the LLVM documentation be updated [1]?
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> The goal is to deprecate and then entirely remove building the runtimes
> with LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS.
>

Glad to hear that's on the plan - looking forward to removing the
ambiguity/traps.

> Libc++'s own documentation has already been updated, but I will update the
> documentation you linked to and add a warning in the CMake -- thanks for
> the suggestion!
>
> Cheers,
> Louis
>
>
>
>>
>> Thank you,
>> -Andrzej
>>
>> [1] https://llvm.org/docs/CMake.html
>>
>> On 11/10/2021 17:17, Louis Dionne via llvm-dev wrote:
>> > Hi folks,
>> >
>> > This message is both a heads up and a request for comments on an
>> > upcoming change we want to make to the way we build
>> > libc++/libc++abi/libunwind.
>> >
>> > For a long time now, those three projects have supported various ways
>> to
>> > be built:
>> >
>> > 1. The Project build, where one would use <root>/llvm as the root of
>> the
>> > CMake invocation and pass LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS.
>> > 2. The Standalone build, where one would perform one CMake invocation
>> > per project being built, and fill in various CMake variables to tell
>> > each project where to find bits of the other projects.
>> > 3. The "Runtimes" or "Bootstrapping" build, where one would use
>> > <root>/llvm as the root of the CMake invocation and pass
>> > LLVM_ENABLE_RUNTIMES. This would result in Clang being built, and then
>> > the runtimes being built with that fresh Clang.
>> > 4. The "Unified Standalone" build, where one would use
>> > <root>/libcxx/utils/ci/runtimes as the root of the CMake invocation and
>> > pass LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS. This was introduced to work around the fact
>> > that the Project build doesn't work on several embedded platforms, and
>> I
>> > think it is only used at Apple.
>> >
>> > Through the years, this has gotten rather confusing and difficult to
>> > support. We currently support all of those on a best-effort basis and
>> we
>> > do have build bots checking each of them, however the complexity is
>> > often getting in the way of providing proper support and improving the
>> > build system of those projects. We've been trying to migrate to a
>> > simpler way to build the runtimes that works for all use cases (notably
>> > embedded platforms) for a long time, and we recently got to a point
>> > where this is possible (thanks mainly to @phosek and @mstorsjo). To
>> > summarize what we're aiming for, we'll now have two ways of building
>> > libc++/lib++abi/libunwind:
>> >
>> > 1. The "Default" build, where the CMake invocation is rooted at
>> > <root>/runtimes and one uses LLVM_ENABLE_RUNTIMES.
>> > 2. The "Bootstrapping" build, where the CMake invocation is rooted at
>> > <root>/llvm and one uses LLVM_ENABLE_RUNTIMES (this is the current
>> > "Bootstrapping" build unchanged).
>> >
>> > If you have been using the "Project", "Standalone" or "Unified
>> > Standalone" builds, you should be moving to the new "Default" build.
>> > This should be really easy to achieve, basically you can just change
>> > LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS to LLVM_ENABLE_RUNTIMES, perform a single
>> > invocation of CMake instead of multiple invocations, and pass all the
>> > LIBCXX_FOO, LIBCXXABI_FOO and LIBUNWIND_FOO options to that single
>> CMake
>> > invocation. See the release note in the PR linked below for more
>> details.
>> >
>> > We are aiming to deprecate all the old ways to build as soon as
>> > possible, and to keep supporting them until after the LLVM 14 release,
>> > at which point we would like to remove support for those and get
>> started
>> > with making improvements. The review at
>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D111356
>> > <https://reviews.llvm.org/D111356> enshrines this deprecation in the
>> > documentation. For technical discussion on this proposed change, please
>> > comment on that review to keep everything in one place.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Louis
>> >
>> > Questions you might be asking yourself:
>> >
>> > Q: Why doesn't the Project build work for embedded platforms?
>> > A: A lot of CMake code in <root>/llvm expects that we're building for a
>> > target with the usual capabilities for a build host, but that isn't the
>> > case for several embedded targets. While it doesn't make sense to build
>> > LLVM or Clang for those embedded targets (which would never be used as
>> > build hosts), it makes sense to build the runtimes for those targets if
>> > you are cross-compiling.
>> >
>> > Q: Currently, we use the Standalone build and are not required to have
>> > all of the Monorepo available. Does this change our ability to do that?
>> > A: Not in the mid term. Building any of the runtimes already requires
>> > all the runtimes to be co-located. The only thing you could get away
>> > with previously was not having the part in <root>/llvm. With the
>> > "Default" build, this will be possible as soon as we move a few CMake
>> > helpers from <root>/llvm/cmake to <root>/cmake. Then, you'll only have
>> > to have <root>/runtimes, <root>/cmake and the projects you are building.
>> >
>> > Q: What's the difference between the "Runtimes build" and the
>> > "Bootstrapping build"?
>> > A: None. We're trying to move away from the term "Runtimes build"
>> > because it's waaaay too confusing, and doesn't describe the fact that
>> > we're really building the runtimes with a just-built Clang.
>> >
>> > Q: What's up with naming the new default build the "Default build"?
>> > A: The name sucks, but we had to pick one and the "Runtimes build" was
>> > already taken for the build that does a bootstrap. Suggestions are
>> > welcome -- basically what this performs is a normal build of the
>> > runtimes using your system compiler, like you used to do with
>> > LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS (but it's better).
>> >
>> > Q: What are the benefits of this migration beyond simplifying the code
>> > for maintainers?
>> > A: Reducing the number of ways we can build the runtimes means that all
>> > the workflows for building the runtimes will become simpler for users
>> > (especially vendors). Furthermore, the new "Default" build is as simple
>> > as the old Project build, but it is faster to configure and works on
>> > embedded platforms. In the near future, it should also be possible to
>> > perform the equivalent of an old "Project build" without having all of
>> > the monorepo available.
>> >
>> > Q: Does this affect other "runtimes" projects like compiler-rt?
>> > A: Not for the time being. We will probably attempt to move those over
>> > in the future as well, however for the time being I can only confirm
>> > that this works fine for libc++, libc++abi and libunwind, so that's
>> > where my deprecation efforts are focused.
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> >
>>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/libcxx-dev/attachments/20211028/d9e1e4a9/attachment-0001.html>