leonardchan added a comment. In D109625#3029581 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D109625#3029581>, @phosek wrote:
> I'm still unsure if this is the right strategy because it creates a > dependency cycle. Specifically, you have the LLVM build trigger the build of > runtimes, and that build would invoke LLVM build again to ensure that the > necessary tools have been built. That shouldn't be necessary though. The LLVM > build already ensures that those tools are being built by making the runtimes > build depend on these tools, see > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/ac2daacb310cbb1732de1c139be7a0e8e982169e/llvm/runtimes/CMakeLists.txt#L461 > > What might be needed is a way to tell the compiler-rt build where to find > these tools. I looked elsewhere in LLVM and it seems like Polly is already > taking that approach, see > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/polly/test/CMakeLists.txt#L6. > Do you think that we could use this strategy? Ah, so it seems that both`test_targets` and `SUB_CHECK_TARGETS` in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/ac2daacb310cbb1732de1c139be7a0e8e982169e/llvm/runtimes/CMakeLists.txt#L474 are both empty, so these dependencies are never added. Lemme see if I can find why they're empty. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D109625/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D109625 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
