Hi Chuck, * Chuck Robey <chuckr_at_telenix.org> wrote: > I feel a bit like an idiot needing to ask this, but I downloaded the stuff on > llvm/clang, but I don't know the name of the directories, and I need to ask some > items. (Before someone kindly points this out, I've been running -current > fairly regularly since 1.0, and I'm completely aware that running current is > very nearly completely a "run at your own risk" thing. I have a pretty good > track record and being able to fix things, and I accept this risk just like the > earlier ones). So, I need the next very few questions to help me on my way: You're not being an idiot; it's something that I should mention somewhere anyway. > First is the complete set of llvm/clang code in that new src/cddl subdirectory? > I looked really hard for directories named either clang or llvm, and since I > didn't find anything, is there anything like a README that explains what's > sitting where? I mean, stuff like what's in the currently available src/README, > but in a little additional detail for the new llvm/clang stuff. This is likely > stuff that others might be curious about also, those who didn't konw any more > about llvm than I do. Because Clang could be integrated into the LLVM repository somewhere in the very far future, I just followed the existing practice of storing the Clang source tree inside the LLVM source directory. This is also done when building llvm-devel from Ports. Sources are stored at: contrib/llvm contrib/llvm/tools/clang Both source trees contain some small modifications, mainly related to changing the compiler's default include paths. The Makefiles I wrote are all stored in: usr.bin/clang Because LLVM and Clang consists of a lot of libraries, there is a lib/ subdirectory. I initially placed this directory at lib/clang, but the problem then is that the lib32 build on amd64 will also build the Clang libraries for nothing. I'm not entirely happy with the pathnames yet, but I think it's reasonable to work with. > Is the rest of the stuff I downloaded, the rest of that tree, being kept up to > date with the rest of the FreeBSD-current's HEAD? Or, is that being held for > llvm testing? BTW, my insurance method here is to have a complete prebuilt > -current tree (with gcc built and ready to be installed) sitting on the side, so > if suddenly llvm won't operate, I only need to install from that other tree to > get me a good gcc again. Not that I'm expecting any code problem, but I could > cause myself some local problem, possibly, I want to protect myself from > anything. I'm honestly mostly worried about the stiching up of the new llvm > code with the rest of the tree, or if that needs something extra (beyond merely > getting llvm working)? Now that there are other people who are starting to use the clangbsd branch for tests (for example Erwin's port builds), I integrate the FreeBSD, LLVM and Clang source once or twice a week. Before I commit, I usually run two buildworlds on an amd64 box, to make sure the system is at least capable of bootstrapping itself. Being able to do that still doesn't bring a lot of guarantees, but at least makes it less likely for you to completely hose your system. -- Ed Schouten <ed_at_80386.nl> WWW: http://80386.nl/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:49 UTC