ldionne added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/cmake/caches/Fuchsia-stage2.cmake:124
set(RUNTIMES_${target}_LIBCXX_ENABLE_SHARED OFF CACHE BOOL "")
- set(RUNTIMES_${target}_LIBCXX_ENABLE_STATIC_ABI_LIBRARY ON CACHE BOOL "")
set(RUNTIMES_${target}_LIBCXX_ABI_VERSION 2 CACHE STRING "")
----------------
ldionne wrote:
> phosek wrote:
> > ldionne wrote:
> > > phosek wrote:
> > > > ldionne wrote:
> > > > > Note that I am removing these options here because I don't think they
> > > > > are required -- since we specify `LIBCXXABI_ENABLE_SHARED=OFF`, there
> > > > > is no shared libc++abi to link against, so we should already be
> > > > > linking against `libc++abi.a` regardless of this change.
> > > > This option was set to merge `libc++abi.a` into `libc++.a` so to
> > > > achieve the same effect, presumably we would need to set
> > > > `-DLIBCXX_CXX_ABI=libcxxabi-objects`?
> > > I agree this is suspicious, but why is there no
> > > `LIBCXX_STATICALLY_LINK_ABI_IN_SHARED_LIBRARY` specified here then? I can
> > > add `-DLIBCXX_CXX_ABI=libcxxabi-objects`, I just want to make sure we
> > > both understand what's going on.
> > This is intentional. We are merging `libc++abi.a` into `libc++.a` but we
> > ship `libc++abi.so` and `libc++.so` as separate (and use the generated
> > linker script to pull in `libc++abi.so` when you pass `-lc++` to linker).
> > I'd be fine merging `libc++abi.so` into `libc++.so` as well, but we'll need
> > to figure out a transition plan since there are several places in our build
> > right now that expect `libc++abi.so` to exist. We cannot land this change
> > as is because that would break the `-static-libstdc++` use case, since
> > Clang driver only passes `-lc++` to the linker and not `-lc++abi` and
> > there's nothing that would pull `libc++abi.a` in.
> I see, so to summarize, basically you want to use `libcxxabi-objects` for the
> static `libc++.a`, but `libcxxabi` for the dynamic `libc++.so`. This change
> as currently laid out does not permit that to happen, since
> `libcxxabi-objects` implies that the objects are merged both in the static
> and in the shared library. I guess we could introduce a new
> `libcxxabi-objects-static` option, however that would be kind of strange. We
> can either do that, or wait for you to stop relying on `libc++abi.so`
> existing and switch to `libcxxabi-objects` wholesale for Fuchsia. WDYT?
Gentle ping. It would be nice to land this in one form or another. If you don't
think Fuchsia can stop relying on `libc++abi.so` being there, I could add yet
another `libcxxabi-objects-static` -- I still feel like that's better than the
status quo.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D125683/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D125683
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
