delcypher added a comment. In D137024#3931488 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D137024#3931488>, @mgorny wrote:
> Well, I'm certainly not opposed to making all the paths configurable. > However, I'm not sure if having CMake file accessible one way or another > wouldn't eventually be a necessity. For one thing, I would like to move more > common code from standalone build codepaths of individual projects into a > dedicated CMake file in LLVM (and while I don't want to speak of others, it > seems that there are at least few other people who would like to see > something similar done). I suppose this wouldn't be an outright blocker if > `llvm/cmake/Modules` directory were present but I'm not 100% sure. @mgorny In our use case the full llvm-project source tree is available. In fact `CompilerRTMockLLVMCMakeConfig` which we use currently relies on this. So I am 100% fine with CMake code being refactored out of `compiler-rt` to elsewhere in the source tree (if it makes sense). What we don't have available is the "build tree/install tree" `LLVMConfig.cmake` file (and friends) because we don't ship it in our toolchain. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D137024/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D137024 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
