Bug 595036 – sys-devel/llvm: fine-grained target flags (or a flag for NVPTX)

• Product: Gentoo Linux
• Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE

[Description Michał Górny 2016-09-24 16:13:07 UTC]

I've just noticed that recent libclc fails to build against clang[-multitarget] because of missing NVPTX builtins. This made me think we could use a more fine-grained choice for the NVPTX target.

I was thinking of the obvious VIDEO_CARDS=nvidia but then it occurred to me that people won't be using libclc with nvidia-drivers, so VIDEO_CARDS=nouveau might be better. But it all looks like a big mess.

So I'm thinking of the alternative: to kill VIDEO_CARDS in llvm/clang, and introduce LLVM_TARGETS with explicit upstream target names.

What do you think? @llvm? @x11?

[Comment 1 Michał Górny 2016-09-24 16:13:54 UTC]

(to clarify: I mean making all targets optional, and eventually killing multitarget)

[Comment 2 Michał Górny 2016-09-24 16:41:05 UTC]

We probably will also need to package.use.force the host target to avoid USE-dep hell for dependencies.

[Comment 3 zhanglei.april 2016-09-25 10:26:40 UTC]

(In reply to Michał Górny from comment #0)
> So I'm thinking of the alternative: to kill VIDEO_CARDS in llvm/clang, and
> introduce LLVM_TARGETS with explicit upstream target names.
I second that.

BTW, could we introduce a flag for controlling the BUILD_SHARED_LIBS option (it's on by default)? I personally like to build llvm as static libs.

[Comment 4 Rok Kralj 2016-10-01 13:37:08 UTC]

Why is X86 masked, and should it not be split into X86 and X86_64?

[Comment 5 Michał Górny 2016-10-01 13:40:25 UTC]

(In reply to Rok Kralj from comment #4)
> Why is X86 masked, and should it not be split into X86 and X86_64?

Where is it masked? And no, LLVM has only X86 target that supports all x86 variants (since Pentium Pro, if I recall correctly).

[Comment 6 Michał Górny 2016-10-01 16:05:54 UTC]

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 418441 ***