[llvm-dev] [PROPOSAL] Add Bazel Build Configuration to the LLVM Monorepo

[Geoffrey Martin-Noble via llvm-dev]

Thanks NIco :-) I think it shouldn't be necessary for this to happen in any
particular order, so you can start moving gn now, if you'd like (but also
not a huge rush).

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:02 AM Nico Weber <thakis at google.com> wrote:

> Yes, moving gn shouldn't be a big problem. It needs some minor bot and
> docs wrangling. Let me know once this is in and I'll work on moving the GN
> files. Should be doable in a week or two.
>
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 2:00 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the summary & other work with this proposal, Geoffrey!
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:49 AM Geoffrey Martin-Noble <gcmn at google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This is an approval of the proposal (patch
>>> <https://reviews.llvm.org/D98639> to actually indicate that in the
>>> status field). The next step is landing the Bazel build files, which will
>>> be subject to the normal patch review process. Chris added notes from our
>>> discussion about the issues discussed, which includes the location of the
>>> build files. We agreed these should be in the root `utils/` directory and
>>> we also think the gn build should move there (it's current location
>>> predates the monorepo). I was going to start a separate thread, but I'll
>>> just +Nico Weber <thakis at google.com>. Nico can you take a look at
>>> moving the gn files? Hopefully this should be pretty trivial?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:30 AM David Blaikie via llvm-dev <
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for the update Chris - could you summarize what this means for
>>>> the proposal/what stage in the proposal process this is? Does this
>>>> represent approval, and the patch should now be submitted without further
>>>> high level design review (that is covered by the proposal review)? Or are
>>>> there further steps?
>>>>
>>>> (does the approval indicate where these files should live? Next to the
>>>> gn files? A new top level location? or is that still up to further
>>>> community review)
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 9:22 AM Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev <
>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello LLVM-Dev,
>>>>>
>>>>> Last week the review managers met to discuss this proposal. I've
>>>>> updated the proposal document with a summary of the meeting. You can find
>>>>> the proposal online here
>>>>> <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-www/blob/main/proposals/LP0002-BazelBuildConfiguration.md>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> The TL;DR is that the review managers agreed the proposal should be
>>>>> approved.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you everyone who participated in the conversations around this
>>>>> proposal, and especially Geoffrey for putting the proposal together and
>>>>> shepherding it along.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Chris
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 19, 2021, at 1:46 PM, Geoffrey Martin-Noble <gcmn at google.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> A reminder that the review period for this ends 2021-02-23, this
>>>>> coming Tuesday. Rest assured that if you expressed opinions in the previous
>>>>> RFC threads then review managers will also consider those points when
>>>>> discussing. We're not going to skip some point just because it wasn't
>>>>> posted in the correct thread :-D
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Geoffrey
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 3:44 AM Renato Golin <rengolin at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 21:00, Geoffrey Martin-Noble <gcmn at google.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To expand a bit on Eric's response, the intent here is *not* to make
>>>>>>> Bazel a supported build system for LLVM or to replace CMake (which I
>>>>>>> believe the proposal makes clear), but rather to enable Bazel usage and
>>>>>>> shared configuration for people and projects that already use it. I do not
>>>>>>> expect that Bazel will cover all the use cases currently supported by LLVM
>>>>>>> CMake any time soon (ever?).I don't work on Bazel itself, so have no
>>>>>>> insight on the support plan for those architectures. Only developers
>>>>>>> interested in working with Bazel would be expected to use or update the
>>>>>>> configuration, so lack of support for specific architectures should not
>>>>>>> affect things, I think.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My views exactly. Bazel will not be a "supported" build system and
>>>>>> doesn't need to build on all platforms and environments LLVM builds. It
>>>>>> should only concern people that actually use Bazel and be completely
>>>>>> transparent to the rest who don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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/20210315/78b1b9fa/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3992 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210315/78b1b9fa/attachment.bin>