[PATCH] D156095: [Bazel] Introduce `//compiler-rt:profile`

[NAKAMURA Takumi via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

chapuni added a reviewer: aaronmondal.
chapuni added a comment.

Thanks for feedbacks.

In D156095#4529073 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D156095#4529073>, @aaronmondal wrote:

> FYI I have buildfiles for a bunch of the compiler-rt targets at https://github.com/eomii/rules_ll/blob/main/llvm-project-overlay/compiler-rt/lib/profile/BUILD.bazel
>
> I'd a bit hesitant to build those with the potentially very old host toolchain since these targets are linked into non clang-toolchain executables. For something like profiling this might not be as impactful as building `libcxx` with an old toolchain but I'm a bit worried that this could lead to issues when using bootstrapped toolchains.

I assume the host toolchain should be capable of building runtimes for bootstrapping.

[RFC] RUNTIMES may be built in-tree and be linked to tools
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-runtimes-may-be-built-in-tree-and-be-linked-to-tools/70357

`rules_ll` itself is interesting. I will read and play it later. Thanks.



================
Comment at: utils/bazel/llvm-project-overlay/compiler-rt/BUILD.bazel:16
+        "COMPILER_RT_HAS_ATOMICS=1",
+        "COMPILER_RT_HAS_FCNTL_LCK=1",
+        "COMPILER_RT_HAS_UNAME=1",
----------------
MaskRay wrote:
> Windows doesn't define COMPILER_RT_HAS_FCNTL_LCK or COMPILER_RT_HAS_UNAME
I haven't introduced conditions since I don't use other environments. Do you think I could use `select()` with minimal conditions here? Could we conditionalize defs individually?


================
Comment at: utils/bazel/llvm-project-overlay/compiler-rt/BUILD.bazel:24
+    srcs = glob([
+        "lib/profile/*.c",
+        "lib/profile/*.h",
----------------
MaskRay wrote:
> We need `lib/profile/*.cpp` for `InstrProfilingRuntime.cpp`
I missed it. Thanks. I have confirmed it can be built (and identical to CMake's in my environment).


================
Comment at: utils/bazel/llvm-project-overlay/compiler-rt/BUILD.bazel:37
+        "-Wno-pedantic",
+        "-Wno-strict-prototypes",
+    ],
----------------
aeubanks wrote:
> MaskRay wrote:
> > Are the two -Wno- needed?
> should just fix the sources instead if these are finding real issues
`-Wno-strict-prototypes` was redundant. It has been there since I checked `-std=c11` for `strdup`.

`-Wno-pedantic` is required since my environment enforces `-pedantic`. I know compiler-rt doesn't like `-pedantic`. I will remove `-pedantic` in my environment.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D156095/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D156095