I haven't made any further progress on it - I think the actual git diff I
posted, changing config.llvm_libs_dir wouldn't quite be shippable as-is,
because it's only correct to add the "/@LLVM_DEFAULT_TARGET_TRIPLE@" if the
runtimes were built with LLVM_ENABLE_PER_TARGET_RUNTIME_DIR ON (which is
Is someone currently working on fixing this? FWIW, I think David's
change seems to go in the right direction (when I originally looked at
this I also ended up on the wrong rpath but I thought it was some
other code that set the wrong value. Didn't realize we have two places
where this happens). I
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 1:28 PM Louis Dionne wrote:
> I believe the issue is probably not related so much to
> LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS vs LLVM_ENABLE_RUNTIMES, but rather to the fact that
> LLVM_ENABLE_RUNTIMES uses per-target runtime directories now (hasn't always
> been the case), which basically
I believe the issue is probably not related so much to LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS vs
LLVM_ENABLE_RUNTIMES, but rather to the fact that LLVM_ENABLE_RUNTIMES uses
per-target runtime directories now (hasn't always been the case), which
basically means that libc++ ends up in `/lib//libc++.so`
instead of
+Louis Dionne - perhaps the libcxx and lldb folks would
be interesting in finding a suitable way to address this issue, since
currently either option (using libcxx in ENABLE_PROJECTS or using it in
ENABLE_RUNTIMES) is incomplete - if I use ENABLE_RUNTIMES I get the libcxx
testing run against the
On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 4:55 PM David Blaikie wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 9:08 AM Raphael Isemann
> wrote:
>
>> Actually the RPATH theory is wrong, but the LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECT
>> workaround *should* still work.
>>
>
> I'll give that a go (it's running at the moment) though I guess this is
On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 9:08 AM Raphael Isemann wrote:
> Actually the RPATH theory is wrong, but the LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECT
> workaround *should* still work.
>
I'll give that a go (it's running at the moment) though I guess this is
inconsistent with the direction libcxx is moving in for building,
Actually the RPATH theory is wrong, but the LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECT
workaround *should* still work.
Am Di., 19. Okt. 2021 um 18:02 Uhr schrieb Raphael Isemann
:
>
> I just saw in your review comment that this is using
> LLVM_ENABLE_RUNTIMES and not LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS for libcxx, so the
> failure
I just saw in your review comment that this is using
LLVM_ENABLE_RUNTIMES and not LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS for libcxx, so the
failure just comes from us setting the wrong RPATH due to the
different runtimes library directory (at least from what I can see).
Would it be possible to put libcxx in
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 9:45 AM Raphael Isemann wrote:
> I think https://reviews.llvm.org/D111978 ,
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D111981 and the other patches Pavel & me put
> up today should improve this situation IIUC.
>
Thanks Raphael - really appreciate you & looking into this!
With
I think https://reviews.llvm.org/D111978 ,
https://reviews.llvm.org/D111981 and the other patches Pavel & me put
up today should improve this situation IIUC.
- Raphael
Am Mo., 18. Okt. 2021 um 05:54 Uhr schrieb David Blaikie via lldb-dev
:
>
> Wondering if anyone else has encountered/dealt with
11 matches
Mail list logo
