This does mostly the same as D112126, but for the runtimes cmake files.
Most of that is straightforward, but the interdependency between
libcxx and libunwind is tricky:
Libunwind is built at the same time as libcxx, but libunwind is not
installed yet. LIBCXXABI_USE_LLVM_UNWINDER makes libcxx link directly
against the just-built libunwind, but the compiler implicit -lunwind
isn't found. This patch avoids that by adding --unwindlib=none if
supported, if we are going to link explicitly against a newly built
unwinder anyway.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113253
5beec6fb04 added LLVM_DEFAULT_TARGET_TRIPLE to the runtimes build with
a comment, however I believe that comment had been copied from the LLVM
build tree. In the context of the runtimes, LLVM_DEFAULT_TARGET_TRIPLE
is used to set what targets we are building for, not the target for which
we "generate code".
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114007
This reverts commit e7568b68da and relands
c6f7b720ec.
The culprit was: missed that libc also had a dependency on one of the
copies of `google-benchmark`
Also opportunistically fixed indentation from prev. change.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112012
under third-party
This change:
- moves the libcxx copy of `google/benchmark` to
`third-party/benchmkark`
- points the 2 uses of the library (libcxx and llvm/utils) to this copy
We picked the licxx copy because it is the most up to date.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112012
This allows tests to tell if they're running natively.
Those tests are libcxxabi/test/native/arm-linux-eabi.
Which were running on Linaro's bots but became unsupported
when we switched to the runtimes build.
Reviewed By: #libc_abi, phosek
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113663
Otherwise, the individual `check-cxx`, `check-cxxabi` and similar targets
will not know about `LLVM_LIT_ARGS`, and we'll end up running lit without
any argument.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112035
This commit makes the new "runtimes" build (with <monorepo>/runtimes as
the root of the CMake invocation) the default way of building libc++.
The other supported way of building libc++ is the "bootstrapping" build,
where `<monorepo>/llvm` is used as the root of the CMake invocation.
All other ways of building libc++ are deprecated effective immediately.
There should be no use-case for building libc++ that isn't supported by
one of these two builds, and the two new builds work on all environments
and are lightweight. They will also make it possible to greatly simplify
the build infrastructure of the runtimes, which is currently way too
convoluted.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111356
This way, we do not need to set LLVM_CMAKE_PATH to LLVM_CMAKE_DIR when (NOT LLVM_CONFIG_FOUND)
Reviewed By: #libc, ldionne
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107717
Don't blindly assume they're supported - GCC doesn't support -nostdlib++.
The llvm-project/runtimes directory is supposed to allow building the
runtimes standalone from a newly built Clang, and thus should allow
building with other compilers too.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109719
If building by pointing cmake directly at the llvm-project/runtimes
directory, the llvm cmake package files (that provide e.g.
LLVM_BUILD_MAIN_SRC_DIR) aren't necessarily available. Instead just
use a path relative to the current source dir.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109717
`<var> STREQUAL ""` fails when `<var>` is unset which can be the
case when using runtimes as top-level build. Use `NOT` instead.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109570
These paths are needed when building with per-target runtime directories.
(It's possible to fix this by manually setting these when invoking
cmake, but one isn't supposed to need to do that.)
Also set LLVM_TOOLS_BINARY_DIR while touching this area (as it's
also unset in this case) even if it isn't specifically needed by the
per-target runtime configuration.
Fixed since previous attempt: Don't check if the runtimes directory
is the root of the CMake invocation; when the main LLVM CMake
build builds runtimes, it does invoke a sub-CMake with this directory
as the root too, just as if manually invoking CMake at the runtimes
directory. Instead check whether LLVM_TOOLS_BINARY_DIR was set and
whether find_package(LLVM) succeeded or not.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107895
These paths are needed when building with per-target runtime directories.
(It's possible to fix this by manually setting these when invoking
cmake, but one isn't supposed to need to do that.)
Also set LLVM_TOOLS_BINARY_DIR while touching this area (as it's
also unset in this case) even if it isn't specifically needed by the
per-target runtime configuration.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107895
compiler-rt needs to use standalone build because of the assumptions
made by its build, but other runtimes can use non-standalone build.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97575
compiler-rt needs to use standalone build because of the assumptions
made by its build, but other runtimes can use non-standalone build.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97575
If the host compiler is MSVC or clang-cl, then the compiler used to
buidl the runtimes will be clang-cl, and it doesn't support either of
those flags.
Worse, because -isystem is a space separated flag, it causes all cmake
try_compile tests to fail, so none of the -Wno-* flags make it to the
compiler in libcxx. I noticed that we weren't passing
-Wno-user-defined-literals to clang-cl and were getting warnings in the
build, and this fixes that for me.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94817
Previously, llvm/runtimes/CMakeLists.txt played two different roles:
1. host side which could used to set up the build of runtimes for
different targets in the right order;
2. target side to build the runtimes for the specified target.
This change splits llvm/runtimes/CMakeLists.txt and moves the target
side to runtimes/CMakeLists laying down the foundation for the "A vision
for building the runtimes" proposal. From the user perspective, there
shouldn't be any visible difference at the moment.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93408
Louis Dionne