ldionne added inline comments.
================
Comment at: libcxx/lib/CMakeLists.txt:269
+ AND (TARGET cxxabi_static OR HAVE_LIBCXXABI))
+ #if ((TARGET ${LIBCXX_CXX_ABI_LIBRARY}) OR
+ #(${LIBCXX_CXX_ABI_LIBRARY} MATCHES "cxxabi(_static|_shared)?" AND
HAVE_LIBCXXABI))
----------------
phosek wrote:
> ldionne wrote:
> > I don't understand why any of this needs to change -- can you please
> > explain? Also, you probably didn't mean to leave the commented-out lines.
> The reason this change is needed the case when we're linking shared libc++abi
> into shared libc++ in which case `${LIBCXX_CXX_ABI_LIBRARY}` will be set to
> `cxxabi_shared` in `HandleLibCXXABI.cmake` but we cannot merge `libc++abi.so`
> into `libc++.a`, so instead we force the use of `cxxabi_static` here.
>
> Alternatively, we could modify `HandleLibCXXABI.cmake` to set two
> dependencies, one for the static case and one for the shared case and use the
> former one here.
>
> Removed the commented out lines.
Thanks. There's something I still don't understand. If you are linking the ABI
library dynamically, why would you want to merge it (well, the static version
of it) into `libc++.a`? It seems like this is somewhat defeating the purpose of
dynamically linking against the ABI library, no?
================
Comment at: libcxxabi/src/CMakeLists.txt:64
# FIXME: Is it correct to prefer the static version of libunwind?
if (NOT LIBCXXABI_ENABLE_STATIC_UNWINDER AND (TARGET unwind_shared OR
HAVE_LIBUNWIND))
list(APPEND LIBCXXABI_LIBRARIES unwind_shared)
----------------
Does this not need to change anymore? I think we'd have to set different flags
for `cxxabi_shared` and `cxxabi_static`.
Repository:
rCXX libc++
https://reviews.llvm.org/D49502
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
