[PATCH] D24084: [CMake] Cleanup libunwind lookup code.

2016-12-15 Thread Logan Chien via Phabricator via cfe-commits
logan added a comment. Hi @rengolin: Yeah. It is a kind of similar. Another route is to move the code from `/include/unwind.h` to `/lib/Headers` and then ship a shim layer with `libc++abi` and/or `libunwind` for old clang. https://reviews.llvm.org/D24084 _

[PATCH] D24084: [CMake] Cleanup libunwind lookup code.

2016-12-12 Thread Renato Golin via Phabricator via cfe-commits
rengolin added a comment. So, we found this issue with the different unwinds between Clang and libunwind: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31035 Is this related? https://reviews.llvm.org/D24084 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.l

[PATCH] D24084: [CMake] Cleanup libunwind lookup code.

2016-10-04 Thread Renato Golin via cfe-commits
rengolin added a comment. @EricWF any comments? https://reviews.llvm.org/D24084 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D24084: [CMake] Cleanup libunwind lookup code.

2016-10-03 Thread Logan Chien via cfe-commits
logan added a comment. Ping. Any further comments? Or, should we duplicate `` in multiple repositories? https://reviews.llvm.org/D24084 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-com

Re: [PATCH] D24084: [CMake] Cleanup libunwind lookup code.

2016-09-02 Thread Logan Chien via cfe-commits
logan added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24084#532724, @asl wrote: > I totally agree with Renato. What part of libc++abi requires exactly > libunwind's unwind.h, what is the dependency? To be specific, we need: - Structure Definition: `_Unwind_Control_Block` (missing from `` bundl

Re: [PATCH] D24084: [CMake] Cleanup libunwind lookup code.

2016-09-02 Thread Anton Korobeynikov via cfe-commits
asl added a comment. I totally agree with Renato. What part of libc++abi requires exactly libunwind's unwind.h, what is the dependency? https://reviews.llvm.org/D24084 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cg

Re: [PATCH] D24084: [CMake] Cleanup libunwind lookup code.

2016-08-31 Thread Renato Golin via cfe-commits
rengolin added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24084#530427, @logan wrote: > We can either (1) specify the path to libunwind or (2) manually download > `unwind.h` header from libunwind project and place it to `include` directory. That is a horrible dependency... I never hit it because

Re: [PATCH] D24084: [CMake] Cleanup libunwind lookup code.

2016-08-31 Thread Logan Chien via cfe-commits
logan added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24084#530433, @rengolin wrote: > That is a horrible dependency... I never hit it because I always test libc++ > with libunwind. I think the best solution is to move/merge `libunwind/include/unwind.h` to/with `clang/lib/Headers/unwind.h`. An

Re: [PATCH] D24084: [CMake] Cleanup libunwind lookup code.

2016-08-31 Thread Logan Chien via cfe-commits
logan added a comment. Yes. This is what we have today. We can either (1) specify the path to libunwind or (2) manually download `unwind.h` header from libunwind project and place it to `include` directory. https://reviews.llvm.org/D24084 ___ cfe

Re: [PATCH] D24084: [CMake] Cleanup libunwind lookup code.

2016-08-31 Thread Renato Golin via cfe-commits
rengolin added a comment. > We have to do so because we need the modified "unwind.h" from libunwind. > (Note: which is bundled with clang/gcc is not sufficient.) So, you need libunwind's sources, even if you're not building or using them, to build libc++abi? https://reviews.llvm.org/D24084

[PATCH] D24084: [CMake] Cleanup libunwind lookup code.

2016-08-31 Thread Logan Chien via cfe-commits
logan created this revision. logan added reviewers: mclow.lists, rengolin, EricWF, danalbert, thakis. logan added a subscriber: cfe-commits. This commit refines the code for libunwind lookup. First, this commit will always search for libunwind no matter LLVM unwinder is enabled or not. We have t