[llvm-dev] For the LLVM wishlist

[ardi via llvm-dev]

On 4/15/16, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 02:31:59PM +0200, ardi via llvm-dev wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev
>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:45:03AM +0200, ardi via llvm-dev wrote:
>> >> What I found is that the build system is really complex, performs many
>> >> checks, and quite often takes wrong decisions (example: a fatal error
>> >> if the OS X version is older than 10.7, instead of just disabling
>> >> sanitizers and continuing with the build --moreover, if you manually
>> >> disable the sanitizers build, its tests are not disabled at make
>> >> check-all, so you end up with many tests failing because of a
>> >> component you didn't build).
>> >
>> > Huh? If you check out only llvm and clang, nothing is checked for the
>> > sanitizers, they don't get built and they don't get tested.
>>
>> But if you don't check out compiler-rt, you don't get builtins.
>> Missing the feature of getting highly optimized code output is a big
>> miss, IMHO. And I don't think builtins require anything apart from a
>> standard compiler.
>
> On most platforms you don't need compiler-rt except for the sanitizers.

Wait, do you mean that builtins for processors like x86_64 or PowerPC
aren't being used by clang? I understood builtins were a key lib for
getting maximum performance on the processors it supports, but maybe I
misunderstood it.

ardi