[llvm-dev] Upgrading LLVM's minimum required CMake version
Philip Reames via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Apr 9 16:26:29 PDT 2020
Eric,
I think you're commingling two points: "setup scripts" and "must support
default toolchain". I think it's important to keep them separate as,
IMO, we should strongly resist the temptation to do the former, while
the second is optional.
Speaking personally, I'd be open to only supporting default
configuration builds on a small subset of platforms. For instance, maybe
*only* Ubuntu last LTS, Windows 10 latest, and MacOS latest. Having to
build a newer cmake doesn't seem like a huge hassle.
We do want the setup to be straight forward for a broad class of
recent-ish distros, but there's a difference between "instructions are
simple and straight forward" and "works out of the box".
Philip
On 4/9/20 4:18 PM, Eric Christopher wrote:
> FWIW I do very much agree here.
>
> Currently we specify a base set of compiler tools and cmake versions,
> but at this point if we follow the proposals mentioned by Philip,
> Chris, and Reid we need to actually give supported OS/Distro/Developer
> Tools versions in order to let people know base requirements. I'm not
> against specifying this, but I think we need consensus on how far back
> we're ok with "base system" or "LTS release" we're willing to support
> and the technical debt associated with such a support strategy :)
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -eric
>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 4:13 PM Philip Reames via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>
> I would be opposed to this proposal. I've worked with build
> systems that went this route before. What happens is the script
> grows ever more complicated, the person who wrote the script
> eventually leaves, and no one knows how to build it outside of a
> particular frozen set of environments. I've literally seen code
> bases die (i.e. no one wants to work on them, eventual rewrite
> target) due to issues this can be traced solely back to this decision.
>
> The fact we use standard build tools is a feature not a bug.
> Let's not "fix" our way into a much worse set of problems.
>
> Philip
>
> p.s. To be clear, I'm not stating an opinion on the original
> question of whether building cmake from source was a reasonable
> expectation.
>
> On 4/9/20 2:55 PM, Alexandre Ganea via llvm-dev wrote:
>>
>> Sorry if this was discussed,
>>
>> Why not have a *setup.sh*/*setup.bat*/*setup.exe* which could
>> download/install/setup everything we want, at the version we
>> want, on a vanilla system? Handle the cases described by Chris
>> below? Why leave the burden to the end-user?
>>
>> Currently, it’s not exactly trivial to setup everything for
>> building & running LLVM on Windows on a cloud VM if you want
>> `ninja check-all` to pass on
>> -DLLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS=llvm;mlir;clang;lld;clang-tools-extra;compiler-rt;lldb.
>> There are many manuals steps, and often things that you forget
>> (GnuWin32 FTW). On Ubuntu it is a bit easier, but still lots of
>> trial and error.
>>
>> We use NuGet
>> <https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/nuget/install-nuget-client-tools>
>> packages in our build system and for our developers, to ensure
>> they always have the right setup. Our games always build and use
>> the toolings from the .nugets, not the default installations on
>> the machine. This guarantees universal determinism everywhere and
>> makes the developer setup a *one-click-exe*. Setting up a similar
>> thing for LLVM for different OSes could be a bit more tricky, but
>> nothing insurmountable?
>>
>> *De :* llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>
>> <mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> *De la part de* Shoaib
>> Meenai via llvm-dev
>> *Envoyé :* April 9, 2020 4:26 PM
>> *À :* Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> <mailto:rnk at google.com>;
>> James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> <mailto:jyknight at google.com>
>> *Cc :* llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> *Objet :* Re: [llvm-dev] Upgrading LLVM's minimum required CMake
>> version
>>
>> I agree that’s valuable, but then it’s also important to pin down
>> exactly what a “modern OS” is, and which ones we should keep in
>> mind when we’re considering e.g. which CMake versions are
>> feasible. (The same applies even more so to toolchain
>> requirements, of course.)
>>
>> *From: *llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org
>> <mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>> on behalf of Reid
>> Kleckner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
>> *Reply-To: *Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com <mailto:rnk at google.com>>
>> *Date: *Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 1:20 PM
>> *To: *James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com
>> <mailto:jyknight at google.com>>
>> *Cc: *"llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>"
>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
>> *Subject: *Re: [llvm-dev] Upgrading LLVM's minimum required CMake
>> version
>>
>> I would add my voice to Chris's: building out of the box on
>> standard distros is a valuable feature. I don't have time to
>> really participate in this discussion, but I'd discourage us from
>> adding any more steps at all to the LLVM getting started document.
>>
>> When I started working on compilers, it was important that I
>> could build LLVM on the system and hardware that I had. That was
>> a meaningful differentiating advantage over GCC, which sent me
>> off on a side quest to check out two unfamiliar arbitrary
>> precision math libraries, and asked me if I wanted to do a
>> two-stage bootstrap. Forget that. From a modern OS, building LLVM
>> should be as simple as:
>>
>> - Install a standard C++ toolchain
>>
>> - Clone source
>>
>> - Paste a standard configuration command
>>
>> - make
>>
>> If we get too far away from that, we've lost something.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 2:49 PM James Y Knight via llvm-dev
>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>
>> I am strongly in favor of increasing the minimum CMake version.
>>
>> I think we should NOT be waiting for the next LLVM release
>> to do so, but should do so as soon as practical (e.g. maybe a
>> month from now). A warning message emitted in CMake spam is
>> not likely to help users very much, IMO. An entry in the
>> release notes saying "This version of LLVM now requires CMake
>> X.Y.Z." along with a link to the completely-trivial
>> instructions on how to get, build, and use a new version for
>> building LLVM (WITHOUT having to install it!), should both
>> suffice -- and is more likely to be useful.
>>
>> I do NOT think we should have a policy tying ourselves to
>> versions supported by certain LTS releases. Users of such
>> LTSes can download a newer cmake. We should, of course,
>> strive to not be unnecessarily annoying -- even though the
>> amount of work to download a new version is small, it's not
>> zero. We should _consider_ the versions that developers are
>> likely to have pre-installed on their machines, and drop
>> support for those versions only when the new features are
>> judged compelling enough to offset the cost
>> (small-pain-per-developer times number-of-deveopers-affected).
>>
>> I agree with others who say we should only upgrade when would
>> be truly valuable -- not automatically just because a
>> new version exists. We should avoid changing the
>> minimum-requirement too often.
>>
>> FInally, I think we should put the decision of when such an
>> upgrade is judged valuable into the hands of those who are
>> spending the most time working on the build system. We do not
>> need to redo this discussion every time.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 4:36 PM Chris Tetreault via llvm-dev
>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>
>> We should decide who we consider the major distros to be.
>> In my mind this is Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, and
>> CentOS/RHEL. We should also consider Visual Studio
>> releases and whatever OSX and the major BSD’s have. (I
>> honestly have no idea so I’ll refrain from speculating)
>>
>> For all of these, we should try very hard to support the
>> most recent LTS. For the previous LTS, it would be nice
>> if we could support it, but we shouldn’t require it. Old
>> LTSs tend to have really out of date packages, especially
>> in times like now with Ubuntu where we’re really close to
>> the current LTS becoming the old LTS.
>>
>> That said, if CMake version X has a killer feature that
>> we need, we should consider upgrading even if it doesn’t
>> fit this criteria. Similarly, we should not just upgrade
>> because the minimum bound of CMake versions supported by
>> this set of OSs increased. The point is to upgrade only
>> when there’s a compelling reason, and this set of OSs is
>> just a heuristic of “most people probably already have
>> this CMake version.”
>>
>> *From:*Shoaib Meenai <smeenai at fb.com
>> <mailto:smeenai at fb.com>>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 8, 2020 12:58 PM
>> *To:* Chris Tetreault <ctetreau at quicinc.com
>> <mailto:ctetreau at quicinc.com>>; Eric Christopher
>> <echristo at gmail.com <mailto:echristo at gmail.com>>
>> *Cc:* llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> *Subject:* [EXT] Re: [llvm-dev] Upgrading LLVM's minimum
>> required CMake version
>>
>> Yeah, I don’t anticipate Windows posing problems. Also,
>> it’s pretty common in Windows to just install software
>> yourself, and CMake ships prebuilt binaries and an
>> installer, so it’s pretty easy to get set up with it.
>>
>> Chris, I’m gonna reiterate a question of mine from an
>> earlier email, since you may have thoughts on it:
>>
>> * If we want to limit ourselves to CMake versions
>> supported by LTS releases of distros, which distros
>> should we consider, and how far back should we go (i.e.
>> is it just the latest LTS or the last two LTS versions)?
>>
>> *From: *llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org
>> <mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>> on behalf of
>> Chris Tetreault via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
>> *Reply-To: *Chris Tetreault <ctetreau at quicinc.com
>> <mailto:ctetreau at quicinc.com>>
>> *Date: *Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 12:51 PM
>> *To: *Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com
>> <mailto:echristo at gmail.com>>
>> *Cc: *"llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>"
>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
>> *Subject: *Re: [llvm-dev] Upgrading LLVM's minimum
>> required CMake version
>>
>> Visual studio 2019 ships with CMake 3.15.5, which is
>> pretty darn new IMO. From what I can tell, CMake versions
>> are tied to visual studio releases. So assuming we go
>> with “what do recent LTS distros have” as our metric, I
>> think it’s reasonable to say “what do recent visual
>> studio versions have”. It probably makes sense to confirm
>> with MS though before we assume that this is the case.
>>
>> *From:*Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com
>> <mailto:echristo at gmail.com>>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 8, 2020 12:41 PM
>> *To:* Chris Tetreault <ctetreau at quicinc.com
>> <mailto:ctetreau at quicinc.com>>
>> *Cc:* Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com
>> <mailto:joker.eph at gmail.com>>; Louis Dionne
>> <ldionne at apple.com <mailto:ldionne at apple.com>>;
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> *Subject:* [EXT] Re: [llvm-dev] Upgrading LLVM's minimum
>> required CMake version
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Throwing a couple of comments in:
>>
>> Chris's position here has a lot of good points and we
>> want to make sure we're not raising the barrier too high.
>> I definitely want to be able to push ahead with our
>> versions of tools; being able to update quickly is one of
>> the hallmarks of the llvm project. That said, binary
>> packages that can be updated are a minimal first step
>> IMO. I'd really like to not build anything from source :)
>> It seems like there are binaries available for cmake for
>> all of our current platforms, but the windows use case
>> that he brings is definitely a significant one. Can we
>> perhaps reach out and find out the likelihood of a
>> reasonably soonish update there? Linux distros are
>> probably less of a problem - while we all can't use ppas
>> we should be able to do something, similarly with osx.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> -eric
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 9:53 AM Chris Tetreault via
>> llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>
>> A line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere. How
>> many “easy” things are we going to require the user
>> to do? Today it’s build a specific CMake from source.
>> What’s next?
>>
>> Not having to manually track down a bunch of
>> dependencies before building is a feature. Not having
>> to have an internet connection at build time (if we
>> were to script the getting of the custom CMake) is a
>> feature. Being able to just call cmake instead of
>> using some build_llvm.sh that (probably poorly) wraps
>> cmake and downloads the correct version is a feature.
>> Being able to use CMake that is distributed with
>> visual studio so that invoking cmake from the
>> developer powershell just works without fiddling with
>> PATHs is a feature. Not having to install msys so
>> that I can invoke download_cmake.sh is a feature. Not
>> having to have the correct version of python (is it 2
>> or 3?) be on the path in order to invoke
>> download_cmake.py is a feature. Not having to
>> remember to do --recurse-submodules on the llvm repo
>> if we include it as a git submodule is a feature. The
>> list goes on. Yeah, these are all little things, but
>> a bunch of little things adds up to a huge barrier.
>>
>> People use Linux distos because by and large they
>> just have all the dependencies that they need. I know
>> I personally hate installing some open source thing
>> on my machines when they have some dependency that’s
>> not in the repos. Sure, it may be easy to build CMake
>> from source. But now I have two CMakes: one that is
>> automatically updated when I do sudo apt-get upgrade,
>> and one that is just randomly in some folder that’s
>> probably not on the PATH. I personally would really
>> appreciate it if we made an attempt to reduce this
>> sort of friction.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Christopher Tetreault
>>
>> *From:*llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org
>> <mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>> *On Behalf
>> Of *Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 8, 2020 9:06 AM
>> *To:* Louis Dionne <ldionne at apple.com
>> <mailto:ldionne at apple.com>>
>> *Cc:* llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> *Subject:* [EXT] Re: [llvm-dev] Upgrading LLVM's
>> minimum required CMake version
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 9:02 AM Louis Dionne
>> <ldionne at apple.com <mailto:ldionne at apple.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 7, 2020, at 22:16, Mehdi AMINI via
>> llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 11:27 AM David Blaikie
>> <dblaikie at gmail.com
>> <mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I think it does make a difference how
>> many things we ask new developers to do
>> to get up and running - because we've
>> asked them to do one thing doesn't mean
>> it's low-cost to ask them to do another
>> thing.
>>
>> In this case I see it rather that if we ask
>> them to do one quite big thing already, we
>> should be OK with what seems like a trivial one.
>>
>> I strongly agree. I think Mehdi's point can be
>> summarized as (Mehdi, feel free to correct me):
>>
>> It's incredibly trivial to install CMake, so if a
>> user is *already* required to install a
>> non-default toolchain (which is not so trivial),
>> requiring them to install a non-default CMake is
>> not increasing the barrier by much.
>>
>> Thanks, this is my point indeed!
>>
>> I think it is even slightly stronger than what you
>> wrote since you don't even need to *install* CMake as
>> it can be built and used directly from the build
>> directory: it is entirely non-intrusive on the system.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Mehdi
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_llvm-2Ddev&d=DwMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=OUvi60kOTuMyRUJcCtHsN-RK1gHy4sXxEGS0pAunCoE&s=W77RObkJ6AlX4-NZ-OApzF80Y5rSjh4gDzuBG4ScjEQ&e=>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_llvm-2Ddev&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=RvaD9Q_VY7Y2QSH5JAtJlUDjQZKLr1RSWDceq7JxvZE&s=SdeUoPXT_jrLA6F111g6osrDG6MW34YbjgUwfq1YSl0&e=>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_llvm-2Ddev&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=RvaD9Q_VY7Y2QSH5JAtJlUDjQZKLr1RSWDceq7JxvZE&s=SdeUoPXT_jrLA6F111g6osrDG6MW34YbjgUwfq1YSl0&e=>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200409/e7e66fef/attachment.html>
More information about the llvm-dev
mailing list