[llvm-dev] State of llgo in monorepo?

Fri Feb 14 06:39:46 PST 2020

Nope, it wasn't all reverted -- the llgo implementation remains deleted.

There's been some confusion borne out of unfortunate naming -- only the
file "llvm/tools/llvm-go/llvm-go.go" was reinstated. Despite its confusing
name, this tool is *not* a go implementation, and has effectively nothing
to do with llgo. It's only a tiny utility script used by the llvm build
process for running go programs with the desired set of environment
variables.

>From the comment in the file:

> This tool lets us build LLVM components within the tree by setting up a
> $GOPATH that resembles a tree fetched in the normal way with "go get".

(FWIW, I had the exact same reaction as you, before realizing the above.)

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 2:46 AM Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> So just to summarise what happened outside the mailing list:
> * We removed llvm-go
> * We also removed/fixed several things that referenced llvm-go in the
> following days.
> * We reverted all of that (apparently to test LLVM’s Go bindings with
> llvm-go instead of system Go)
>
> So from what I understand the only reason llvm-go is in tree is to test
> the bindings? It’s also not clear to me why we can’t use the normal go
> compiler for testing them (like we test the ocaml bindings with the system
> ocamlc).
>
> On 10. Feb 2020, at 19:12, Eric Christopher via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> Done thusly:
>
> echristo at athyra ~/r/llvm-project> git push
> To github.com:llvm/llvm-project.git
>    936d1427da1..372bfc65deb  master -> master
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 10:02 AM Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> OK. I'll get it.
>>
>> -eric
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 9:58 AM Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sure, that's fine with me.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 9:57 AM Eric Christopher via llvm-dev <
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Calling pcc real fast :)
>>>>
>>>> -eric
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 9:49 AM David Blaikie via llvm-dev <
>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yep - delete it. If someone wants it back they can resurrect it from
>>>>> version control & explain why it's worth adding back in.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 9:17 AM Jonas Devlieghere via llvm-dev <
>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for bringing this up! Strong +1 from me for all the  reasons
>>>>>> you've mentioned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 8:42 AM Raphael Isemann via llvm-dev
>>>>>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Hi all,
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > the monorepo contains a Go frontend called 'llgo' (in the llgo/ top
>>>>>> > level folder). It apparently hasn't been active since 2017 and
>>>>>> before
>>>>>> > that it wasn't very active either (there were 13 commits in 2016
>>>>>> > apparently, most of it minor fixes).
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > I would propose that we remove it from the monorepo for the
>>>>>> following reasons:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > * It is apparently unmaintained.
>>>>>> > * It only supports a long outdated Go version (1.5 while latest is
>>>>>> 1.13 or so).
>>>>>> > * It doesn't build (at least on my machine) due to runtime errors
>>>>>> (the
>>>>>> > build log is really unhelpful in telling me what actually went
>>>>>> wrong).
>>>>>> > In general the build system is kinda flawed as it seems to just
>>>>>> > manually run 'make' as a single custom build step (even with a
>>>>>> -GNinja
>>>>>> > build).
>>>>>> > * It contains a full copy of Mark Twain's novel "The Adventures of
>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>> > Sawyer". It gets really tiring to blacklist this file on my desktop
>>>>>> > search engine as it otherwise constantly comes up in unrelated
>>>>>> > searches for words that are by accident in this novel.
>>>>>> > * The sources of multiple third party libraries are copied into its
>>>>>> > third party directory. It would be nice not to have random code in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> > LLVM repo under a different license than LLVM.
>>>>>> > * It's the only reason why we maintain some Go support in LLVM's
>>>>>> CMake
>>>>>> > (like llvm_add_go_executable ).
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Thoughts?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > - Raphael
>>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>> > 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
>>>>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>> 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
>>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> Peter
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> 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
> 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/20200214/7945281a/attachment.html>