This is an archive of the discontinued LLVM Phabricator instance.

[libc++] [cmake] Better diagnostics for missing abi library headers
ClosedPublic

Authored by broadwaylamb on Mar 11 2020, 7:31 AM.

Details

Summary

The main motivation for this change is this build failure, which for some reason only happens on the buildbot.

This is NFC. We only add additional information to the log.

Diff Detail

Event Timeline

broadwaylamb created this revision.Mar 11 2020, 7:31 AM
Herald added a project: Restricted Project. · View Herald Transcript
broadwaylamb edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)Mar 11 2020, 7:34 AM
broadwaylamb added a reviewer: ldionne.
broadwaylamb edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)Mar 11 2020, 7:37 AM
ldionne accepted this revision.Mar 11 2020, 9:35 AM

LGTM, but in the future I think it would be reasonable to just require libc++ and libc++abi sources when building either one of them. That would simplify a lot of searching logic and we could start sharing stuff between the two. And concretely, I think it wouldn't change much since we're in the monorepo anyway.

@broadwaylamb I think you might have some funky requirements around that -- would it be problematic for you if we required a monorepo checkout when building libc++ or libc++abi?

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Mar 11 2020, 9:35 AM

@broadwaylamb I think you might have some funky requirements around that -- would it be problematic for you if we required a monorepo checkout when building libc++ or libc++abi?

Honestly, I didn't know that we still supported non-monorepo checkout. On the buildbots I'm working on, I believe this is a non-issue. I can't speak for everyone, though.

@broadwaylamb I think you might have some funky requirements around that -- would it be problematic for you if we required a monorepo checkout when building libc++ or libc++abi?

Honestly, I didn't know that we still supported non-monorepo checkout. On the buildbots I'm working on, I believe this is a non-issue. I can't speak for everyone, though.

Nice. For some reason I thought you had that requirement, and I didn't want to change it without asking cause it would have broken you. I guess I'll ask on libc++-dev just to be sure.

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.