aaron.ballman added a comment. In D132324#3742605 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D132324#3742605>, @ldionne wrote:
> This sucks, but I'm going to revert this series of patches. This is getting > somewhat out of hands and I feel that we're rushing to fix all kinds of > issues in various directions. I'm going to revert the following patches, in > this order: > > 1. 952f90b72b35 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/rG952f90b72b3546d6b6b038d410f07ce520c59b48> [CMake] > Weaken 176db3b3ab25ff8a9b2405f50ef5a8bd9304a6d5 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/rG176db3b3ab25ff8a9b2405f50ef5a8bd9304a6d5> > 2. e6a0800532bb > <https://reviews.llvm.org/rGe6a0800532bb409f6d1c62f3698bdd6994a877dc> > [libcxxabi][cmake] Allow building without libcxx again > 3. 176db3b3ab25 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/rG176db3b3ab25ff8a9b2405f50ef5a8bd9304a6d5> [RFC] > Remove support for building C++ with `LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS` > > Otherwise: > > - I also think we don't want to move forward with D132411 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/D132411> -- it's going against this transition. > - https://reviews.llvm.org/rZORG3a209ca6c1b9 sounds like a good change we'd > need to make no matter what, so that's great. > - D132454 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D132454> seems like a good change > regardless of this series of patches. > > I think that's the whole set of changes/reviews associated to this in the > past few days. If I've missed anything, please let me know ASAP. > > This will have been extremely useful as a way to shake out places where the > deprecated `LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS` build is still being used for > libc++/libc++abi. However, we should take the time to fix these places first > before landing the actual breaking change, otherwise things become too > unstable and we're rushed into making potentially poor decisions. > > Concretely, as an action item to move this transition forward, I will: > > 1. Grep for places where we still use `LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS` for libc++ and > libc++abi in the LLVM monorepo > 2. Do the same in the llvm-zorg repo > 3. Do the same in our downstream bots (if other folks see this because of > downstream breakage in their forks, be proactive and do this too, or you will > get broken in the future!) > 4. Re-land a patch that turns the `WARNING` into a `FATAL_ERROR`, and just > that. Watch for more breakage and try fixing it iteratively. > 5. Once we have `FATAL_ERROR` in place and things are green, we can land the > rest of this patch (plus a few other things I had locally) to actually remove > support for `LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS` with libc++/libc++abi. Thank you @ldionne -- I think this plan of action makes sense to me. The disruption from reverts is unfortunate, but I think it's better to take a clean run at this once we have everything lined up and ready in the other projects. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D132324/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D132324 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
