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

[Chris Lattner via llvm-dev]

Thanks Nico!

> On Mar 15, 2021, at 11:02 AM, Nico Weber via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:rengolin at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 21:00, Geoffrey Martin-Noble <gcmn at google.com <mailto: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 <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev <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 <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/20210315/8e2f17ec/attachment.html>