[llvm-dev] For the LLVM wishlist
Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Sun Apr 17 03:00:46 PDT 2016
Your comments about the compiler-rt build system being a problem are very correct. We're working on it. We're moving in a direction with the compiler-rt build system to separate the build logic for the sanitizers from the build logic for the builtins, and to clean up the interface between the top-level LLVM & Clang build systems and the compiler-rt one.
>> On Apr 16, 2016, at 1:26 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 05:22:12PM +0200, ardi via llvm-dev wrote:
>>>> 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.
> Few builtins are lowered to libcalls on x86_64 and powerpc and those are
> normally provided e.g. by libgcc already.
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
More information about the llvm-dev