[LLVMdev] [RFC] Ideas on improving Compiler-RT CMake

[Richard Smith]

On 2 Jun 2015 2:04 pm, "Jonathan Roelofs" <jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/2/15 2:38 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 2015-Jun-01, at 19:47, Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If we drop support for building compiler-rt with GCC, this gets even
simpler. Compiler-rt is *Clang's* runtime library, after all.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don’t know if it is on the table to drop supporting compiler-rt with
GCC, but that would dramatically simplify things.
>>
>>
>> Weird, I'd assumed building compiler-rt with something other than
>> clang was unsupported.  Maybe I'm missing something, but shouldn't
>> the only supported configuration be building with the just-built
>> clang?
>
>
> The current default for an in-tree build is to build compiler-rt with
whatever compiler is being used to build Clang... sometimes that compiler
is GCC.
>
> I agree though. We should always use the just-built Clang, and have that
behavior be opt-out (if folks need it), instead of opt-in as it is now.

What would the build system do for a cross compile of Clang?

>
> Jon
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>
> --
> Jon Roelofs
> jonathan at codesourcery.com
> CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150602/09aee900/attachment.html>