[llvm] r239035 - Include BPF target in CMake builds.

[Eric Christopher]

You were correct in your earlier assumption, this shouldn't have been added
by default yet.

I'm going to go ahead and revert this patch in a bit unless someone tells
me not to bother, and you can propose your patch to do, essentially, the
same thing with the rationale from this message if you'd like.

FWIW I'm not against it, you've been an active maintainer and the BPF port
hasn't been terrible to update (from looking at the patches) or keep
updated (in the few occasions I've done it).

-eric

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:38 PM Alexei Starovoitov <
alexei.starovoitov at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:51 AM, Daniel Sanders
> <daniel.sanders at imgtec.com> wrote:
> > Author: dsanders
> > Date: Thu Jun  4 07:51:20 2015
> > New Revision: 239035
> >
> > Include BPF target in CMake builds.
> >
> > Modified:
> >     llvm/trunk/CMakeLists.txt
> >
> > --- llvm/trunk/CMakeLists.txt (original)
> > +++ llvm/trunk/CMakeLists.txt Thu Jun  4 07:51:20 2015
> > @@ -169,6 +169,7 @@ set(LLVM_INCLUDE_DIR ${CMAKE_CURRENT_BIN
> >  set(LLVM_ALL_TARGETS
> >    AArch64
> >    ARM
> > +  BPF
> >    CppBackend
>
> wow :)
> this is what I wanted to propose for the last few months.
> I had a chat with Chandler about graduating BPF backend
> from experimental, but I want to make sure everyone is ok
> before proceeding.
> Current status of it:
> - running on x64, arm64, s390 architectures
> - projects that use it: perf, tc, ovs
> - there are few front-ends in the works:
>  one is translating language X to C and then using clang/llvm,
>  another is generating llvm IR directly,
>  yet another is using clang rewriter to augment C language
>  for tracing/networking needs.
>  one project tried to hack clang overall and was abandoned.
> - I've seen people embedding binary llc with bpf support
>  in their github projects.
> - broken llvm build with bpf backend was reported many
>  times with few folks even provided simple patches to unbreak it.
> - we've started to prepare buildbot specific to bpf, but hit
>  configuration issues with zorg. Hopefully it will be functional soon.
> - as far as I can see all across the board api refactoring that
>  was done by a bunch of people over the last 5 month
>  didn't cause any problems for them or for the backend
>
> bpf backend has been in-tree since January and has enough
> users, so I think it's time to graduate it from experimental.
> Honestly I was surprised to see this patch... I was hoping
> it will be my honors to do it ;)
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20150604/5a675066/attachment.html>