[llvm-dev] [RFC] Strategies for Bootstrapping Compiler-RT builtins

[Martell Malone via llvm-dev]

>
> Thanks for pointing this out and I hope llvm-ar is up to the task.
> Even if targets must still port binutils, each step toward LLVM
> self-reliance is a step in the right direction.
> Without getting too far ahead of ourselves, refactoring built-ins into
> a distinct library is a great place to start.

+1
This was my line of thinking

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Martell Malone <martellmalone at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I will not be stripping out any of the existing CMake. If we go down this
>> path what I’m going to do is refactor the CMake to produce to logically
>> separated projects so that the builtins can be built with or without the
>> runtime libraries. It will all still be CMake-based.
>
> Sorry. s/stripping/seperating/g
> I was still thinking about the stripping of the IOS build from the OSX
> default build :)
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Nov 3, 2015, at 9:24 AM, Martell Malone <martellmalone at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Cool. This then makes your other point about requiring LLVM tools less of
>>> an issue because the out-of-tree builds can use whatever tools you choose.
>>> We just need to make the builtins work so that you don’t need them already
>>> built.
>>
>> With that in mind for an intiial solution before you get to stripping out
>> the cmake stuff so that it can do an out of tree bootstrap.
>> I have created a script that fits into the make bootstrapping method that
>> already exists.
>> Not sure if this is up for removal because it is not dependent on auto
>> tools?
>>
>>
>> I will not be stripping out any of the existing CMake. If we go down this
>> path what I’m going to do is refactor the CMake to produce to logically
>> separated projects so that the builtins can be built with or without the
>> runtime libraries. It will all still be CMake-based.
>>
>> -Chris
>>
>>
>> Chris could you kindly add yourself as a reviewer to this
>> http://reviews.llvm.org/D14290
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 6:15 PM, C Bergström <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Steve King via llvm-dev
>>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Martell Malone <
>>> martellmalone at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> Just as a point for building the builtins shouldn't we just need
>>> llvm-ar ?
>>> >
>>> > Thanks for pointing this out and I hope llvm-ar is up to the task.
>>> > Even if targets must still port binutils, each step toward LLVM
>>> > self-reliance is a step in the right direction.
>>> >
>>> > Without getting too far ahead of ourselves, refactoring built-ins into
>>> > a distinct library is a great place to start.
>>>
>>> Before anyone starts refactoring binutils - if you're really zealous
>>> or have some strong logical reason against it - there is the BSD elf
>>> tools project
>>>
>>> http://sourceforge.net/p/elftoolchain/wiki/Home/
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151103/5fb6f87a/attachment.html>