[LLVMdev] Out of tree targets

[Eric Christopher]

Mmm.. true. Explicit dependencies are both nice and annoying. We'd need to
mention it somewhere basically.

-eric

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:19 AM Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info>
wrote:

> I believe we'd need LLVMBuild.txt even in autoconf build - for bunch
> of autogenerated stuff, e.g. list of all asmprinters / asmparsers /
> InitializeAllTargetInfos, etc., since targets are not autoregistered
> anymore.
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Neil,
> >
> > Weird, I'd think the cmake build should probably do something similar to
> the
> > autoconf build if possible and just have subdirectories equal to the
> targets
> > to build. I'm not sure if this is possible etc... could try some setting
> > etc.
> >
> > -eric
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:11 AM Neil Henning <llvm at duskborn.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hey all,
> >>
> >> Quick query on out of tree target support - at present I can drop a
> folder
> >> Foo into <llvm>/lib/Target/Foo and use the CMake option
> >> LLVM_EXPERIMENTAL_TARGETS_TO_BUILD to pick up my target. The issue is
> that I
> >> still need to patch the one LLVMBuild.txt file in <llvm>/lib/Target
> with;
> >>
> >> iff --git a/lib/Target/LLVMBuild.txt b/lib/Target/LLVMBuild.txt
> >> index 4112046..6e42cbe 100644
> >> --- a/lib/Target/LLVMBuild.txt
> >> +++ b/lib/Target/LLVMBuild.txt
> >> @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
> >>
> >> ;===--------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------===;
> >>
> >>  [common]
> >> -subdirectories = ARM AArch64 BPF CppBackend Hexagon MSP430 NVPTX Mips
> >> PowerPC R600 Sparc SystemZ X86 XCore
> >> +subdirectories = ARM AArch64 BPF CppBackend Hexagon MSP430 NVPTX Mips
> >> PowerPC R600 Sparc SystemZ X86 XCore Foo
> >>
> >>  ; This is a special group whose required libraries are extended (by
> >> llvm-build)
> >>  ; with the best execution engine (the native JIT, if available, or the
> >>
> >> To include my target in the LLVM build, and this allows me to specify
> >> -march=foo and it will call into my code correctly.
> >>
> >> Am I missing something - or is this patch definitely required?
> >>
> >> If the patch is required - does anyone have any suggestions/ideas how I
> >> could add support to either LLVMBuild or the specific LLVMBuild.txt
> file so
> >> that it would pick up my new Target?
> >>
> >> I understand that my patch is tiny and relatively easy to maintain (it
> >> will basically always merge well) - but it still irks me having to keep
> a
> >> patch where it probably isn't required!
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> -Neil.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> >
>
>
>
> --
> With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
> Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150309/21589734/attachment.html>