[LLVMdev] Compiler-RT roadmap

[Reid Kleckner]

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Vadim Chugunov <vadimcn at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> In continuation of several threads from the last week, I'd like to ask: is
> there a stated plan of what is going to happen with compiler-rt in the near
> future?  In particular, I'm interested if any of the following is planned
> to happen:
>
> - Separation from clang
> I've seen a suggestion to rename compiler-rt to "libclang_rt", but its'
> applicability is much broader than just clang.  I think it would make more
> sense to make it more independent of clang, not less.  If anything, it
> should be renamed "llvm-rt", because it's LLVM codegen that emits
> references to functions defined in compiler-rt.
>

The libraries produced are already called libclang_rt.<arch>.so and have
been shipped, and I think it's too late to change that name.


> If I understand compiler-rt's build system correctly, right now the only
> supported way of building it is as a part of clang build (however it must
> be checked out into llvm/projects directory?)   If it is to be used with
> other LLVM-based compilers, it needs to be build-able separately from clang.
>

Making it build separately seems reasonable.


> - Being able to build it for all platforms that LLVM can target
> Since LLVM-produced binaries depend on compiler-rt, it should be available
> for all LLVM target platforms.  This seems not to be the case currently (at
> least via Makefiles, maybe it's possible via cmake, but I have not been
> able to make it work on Mingw/Windows).
>

You can build the asan runtime for Windows with CMake, but I think that's
it.


> - Inclusion of libunwind
> It was also suggested that libunwind should be moved from libcxxabi into
> compiler-rt, because it isn't C++ specific.   To me, it seems like the
> correct decision, because LLVM generates direct calls to _Unwind_Resume for
> any code that uses 'invoke' instructions and cleanup landing pads.
> Is anyone already working on this?   And if not, do compiler-rt
> maintainers agree that this is the right thing to do, and will they accept
> patches?
>
> I've developed some patches that try to address #1 and #2 above:
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140203/203928.html
> Can somebody please take a look?   Who are the current maintainers of
> compiler-rt?
>
> thanks,
> Vadim
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140213/9c724f37/attachment.html>