On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:38:55AM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote: > On 17/09/14 15:37, Jonathan Gray wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 07:03:56AM -0700, Tom Stellard wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 09:29:34PM +1000, Jonathan Gray wrote: > >>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 06:24:40PM -0400, Tom Stellard wrote: > >>>> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 07:56:03PM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote: > >>>>> On 09/09/14 16:26, Tom Stellard wrote: > >>>>>> On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 01:43:55AM +1000, Jonathan Gray wrote: > >>>>>>> In LLVM 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 the patch level was only set in config.h when > >>>>>>> LLVM was built via autoconf and not when it was built with cmake. > >>>>>>> Fall back to retrieving the patch level from llvm-config --version to > >>>>>>> handle this case. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We should extract LLVM_VERSION_PATH from $LLVM_VERSION and then we > >>>>>> won't > >>>>>> have to worry about which config file it is in. > >>>>>> > >>>>> I believe you meant VERSION_PATCH above ? Indeed that would nice thing > >>>>> to have > >>>>> but I doubt that it will get back-ported to the llvm 3.4 branch. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> I mean we should do this in Mesa's configure script. Something like: > >>>> > >>>> LLVM_VERSION_PATCH = echo $LLVM_VERSION | sed 's/^[0-9]\+\.[0-9]\+\.//g' > >>> > >>> This should be > >>> > >>> LLVM_VERSION_PATCH = echo $LLVM_VERSION | sed -E 's/^[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.//g' > >>> > >>> $ echo 3.4.2 | sed 's/^[0-9]\+\.[0-9]\+\.//g' > >>> 3.4.2 > >>> > >>> $ echo 3.4.2 | sed -E 's/^[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.//g' > >>> 2 > >>> > >>> $ echo 3.4.2 | gsed 's/^[0-9]\+\.[0-9]\+\.//g' > >>> 2 > >>> > >>> $ echo 3.4.2 | gsed -E 's/^[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.//g' > >>> 2 > >> > >> Which of these examples are *BSD compatible? > > > > To be compliant with POSIX you can only use + in extended regular > > expressions > > the use of + in basic regular expressions is apparently a gnu extension? > > > > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap09.html > > > > Using sed with extended regular expressions via -E is also an extension > > but it would seem a more common one. > > > > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/sed.html > > > > In the above examples gsed is the gnu one and sed is the > > Diomidis Spinellis/BSD/OS X sed. The way the REs are handled > > depends on how REs are implemented in the respective libc versions. > > > > This is really the same issue you reviewed and pushed a > > fix for in cdb353539c259d5c5137394f6a7b4dafef9a40da except > > there is no 'esed' for EREs with sed. > > > > So the version with -E should be preferred. But either way there > > is a problem with versions of llvm that don't have a patch level. > > > > $ echo 3.4 | sed -E 's/^[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.//g' > > 3.4 > > > > so if you want to use sed it should be something like > > $ echo 3.4 | sed -E 's/^[0-9]+\.[0-9]+//g' > > > > Then check for an empty string and set it zero. > > Or just use 'cut' like the cmake patch did. > > > > LLVM_VERSION_PATCH=`echo $LLVM_VERSION | cut -d. -f3` > > if test -z "$LLVM_VERSION_PATCH"; then > > LLVM_VERSION_PATCH=0 > > fi > > > AFAICT the agreement here is to drop the header parsing/searching and > use llvm-config --version (i.e. LLVM_VERSION). And obviously zero out > the patch version when applicable. > > Jonathan does this solution work properly with llvm's cmake and/or > autoconf build ? If so can you prep a patch please :)
Both autoconf and cmake builds of LLVM install llvm-config, and llvm-config from 3.4.2 for example does report the correct version unlike the header method when built via cmake. > > A worthy mention, this is not the first time llvm's cmake build is > causing problems and I'm not sure how well the llvm people tested it. > Any particular reason to stick with it, or is llvm's autoconf build in a > similar (*BSD unfriendly) state as mesa ? It seems the general sentiment is to remove the autoconf build system in LLVM. See http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.devel/69072 FreeBSD has their own LLVM build system, but likely still build llvm-config. The OpenBSD LLVM port switched to building with cmake for LLVM 3.0 about three years ago, I'm not entirely sure on the reasons for that. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
