ldionne added a comment. In D132324#3742700 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D132324#3742700>, @Ericson2314 wrote:
>> I also think we don't want to move forward with D132411 >> <https://reviews.llvm.org/D132411> -- it's going against this transition. > > I would like to discuss some of this sort of thing so more, but better to do > that on the the discourse than my shoddy commits that need reverting! Sure, I'd be curious to understand why that's needed. After some thinking, I created the following stack of patches: D132478 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D132478> => D132479 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D132479> => D132480 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D132480>. The last patch is basically a reboot of this patch, i.e. it's the one that will make folks who use `LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS=libcxx` start failing. However, I am also trying to keep `LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS` and `LLVM_ENABLE_RUNTIMES` consistent, i.e. it should be possible to use `LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS=all` and `LLVM_ENABLE_RUNTIMES=all` without ever being broken by any of our changes (except `libcxx`, `libcxxabi` and `libunwind` would suddenly start building with the bootstrapping build instead of the normal runtimes build). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D132324/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D132324 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
