[LLVMdev] Building llvm from source with clang instead of gcc

[Edward Diener]

On 1/6/2013 9:47 AM, Justin Holewinski wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Edward Diener
> <eldlistmailingz at tropicsoft.com <mailto:eldlistmailingz at tropicsoft.com>>
> wrote:
>
>     On 1/5/2013 8:01 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote:
>
>
>         On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Edward Diener
>         <eldlistmailingz at tropicsoft.__com
>         <mailto:eldlistmailingz at tropicsoft.com>
>         <mailto:eldlistmailingz at __tropicsoft.com
>         <mailto:eldlistmailingz at tropicsoft.com>>>
>
>         wrote:
>
>              On 01/05/2013 01:11 PM, Dmitri Gribenko wrote:
>
>                  On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Edward Diener
>                  <eldlistmailingz at tropicsoft.____com
>                  <mailto:eldlistmailingz at __tropicsoft.com
>         <mailto:eldlistmailingz at tropicsoft.com>>>  wrote:
>
>
>                      I actually found out that llvm/configure will
>         choose clang
>                      if it is
>                      found in the path. This contradicts what is written at
>         http://llvm.org/docs/____GettingStarted.html#____requirements
>         <http://llvm.org/docs/__GettingStarted.html#__requirements>
>
>         <http://llvm.org/docs/__GettingStarted.html#__requirements
>         <http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#requirements>>,
>
>                      where it says it
>                      will use the first GCC it finds. Perhaps that
>         explanation
>                      needs to be
>                      updated.
>
>
>                  Updated docs in r171630.
>
>                      Finally I found that if llvm/configure uses clang
>         instead of
>                      gcc, it
>                      invariably fails on my Linux distros because it is
>         using the gcc
>                      distributed included directories and an earlier
>         version of
>                      clang will
>                      often fail with these gcc header files. Once I force
>                      llvm/configure to
>                      use gcc, building llvm/clang succeeds again.
>
>
>                  Right.  Maybe we need to skip old clang versions in
>         this case.
>
>
>              I think this should be done until clang can use its own
>         header files
>              and libraries, when it is installed as a binary, rather
>         than the
>              ones that gcc installs. In fact I am a bit amazed that
>         clang does
>              not already have its own header files and libraries for use
>         when one
>              tries llvm/configure and it sets up llvm's build system to
>         use clang
>              as its compiler. Is this the fault of clang or is it the
>         fault of
>              the llvm/configure system ?
>
>
>         There is no complete solution for LLVM-only headers/libraries yet on
>         Linux.  For C++, you can use libc++, but you still need some GCC
>         libraries (or alternatives).  And you will at least need glibc or
>         another compatible C runtime.
>
>
>     Should not what it is needed by clang to work correctly under Linux
>     be posted somewhere on the clang Getting Started web page ? Even
>     what you posted above requires guesswork on my part.
>
>
> Clang will attempt to use your installed system libraries, usually
> libstdc++ and glibc on a Linux distribution.  We could probably maintain
> a libstdc++ compatibility table that says clang x.y is compatible with
> libstdc++ up to z.w.  In the vast majority of cases, this just works if
> you install a somewhat-newer version of clang.  The problems arise when
> you use an older clang with a newer libstdc++ (e.g. newer gcc and/or
> linux distribution).

This is what evidently happens. A clang binary distribution gets created 
for a particular Linux distro but there is no compatibility in the 
package which states that it only works with some version of libstdc++ 
or glibc or earlier. Then a later version of gcc gets installed and with 
it a later version of libstdc++ and glibc as a dependency. Now the 
binary version of clang no longer works on that system because of the 
updates to the C/C++ standard library.

I do not believe this should ever happen. I am not focusing blame but 
simply saying that from an end-user's POV this is not acceptable if one 
wants to use clang without having to build it oneself.

>
>
>     Am I supposed to install libc++ and glibc in a Linux distro for
>     clang to work correctly ?
>
>
> glibc will already be there.  libc++ is purely optional.  Clang will
> happily use libstdc++ (which comes with your linux distribution), but
> newer libstdc++ versions may use new GCC extensions that clang does not
> yet support.  This is an unfortunate condition that arises from
> depending on GNU libraries that assume GCC.  At this time, libc++ is not
> entirely self-contained on Linux and still requires some GCC libraries
> for some external functions.
>
>
>     Which versions do I need ?
>
>
> I'm guessing you are running into issues with the C++ standard library
> headers.  In that case, it depends on which clang version you are using.
>   For compatibility reasons, it is best to always use the latest
> released clang (if not trunk).  If you try again with 3.2, I bet your
> problems go away.
>
>
>     How do I tell clang what to use or is this automatically figured out
>     by clang ?
>
>
> There are ways to override the location for the headers/libraries of
> libstdc++, but I would not recommend this.  Upgrading to a newer clang
> should be easier in the long run.
>
>
>     Will llvm/configure use these libraries if I let it choose a clang
>     binary in order to build the latest llvm/clang from source ?
>
>
> Which libraries?  An older libstdc++?  You can use CXXFLAGS and LDFLAGS
> to adjust the library search paths, just as you use CXX to set the
> compiler to use.
>
>
> Generally, it is recommended to bootstrap clang:
>
> 1. Build llvm/clang with system gcc
> 2. Build llvm/clang with new clang
> 3. Install new clang somewhere (which will automatically use system
> libstdc++/glibc).
>
> This should solve your problem.

OK, this sounds good. Can this process not be explained on the clang 
Getting Started page for those who are building clang from source. I am 
not sure how step 3) is supposed to go. Do I just copy the built bin 
directory somewhere else and then put it first in my PATH, before 
running llvm/configure ? Or is "Install new clang" more complicated than 
that ?

Originally I thought I could have both an earlier binary version of 
clang as well as the latest built version of clang in a Linux distro so 
that I could test code on both for compatibility of my library for 
end-users. But with the fairly common breakage of the binary version 
package of clang when libstdc++/glibc gets updated, this has become much 
less of a reality.