On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Xavier Chantry <chantry.xav...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Luca Barbieri <l...@luca-barbieri.com> wrote: >> Yes, that used to happen for me too. >> >> Just edit llvm-config to remove the offending text and ideally file a >> bug on the LLVM bug tracker. >> > > looks like nobled did this for me : http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=8220 > thanks :) >
The first answer is very negative and reports the bug as invalid. http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=8220#c1 The only suggestion is that custom flags could be appended. Another problem is indeed that mesa puts these llvm flags at the end, and the custom user CFLAGS first. irc discussion on oftc #llvm : 18:16 shining^ >> hopefully someone will look at http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=8220 , it should be easy to fix 18:16 gccbot >> tools bug #8220: llvm-config prints unnecessary cflags Product: tools, Component: llvm-config, Severity: normal, Assigned to: unassignedbugs, Status: NEW 18:20 @ aKor >> shining^: the PR looks invalid to me. 18:20 @ aKor >> shining^: all the printed tools are also required for projects 18:21 @ aKor >> e.g. sometimes O3 is lowered to O2 to workaround compiler miscompilation 18:21 @ aKor >> if you want to override the settings, you should just append the necessary stuff to the end of cflags / cxxflags 18:54 shining^ >> aKor: why are they required for projects ? 18:56 @ aKor >> shining^: because in the projects decent amount of LLVM code is compiled and used. This is mostly the code coming from the headers. 18:57 shining^ >> I dont think the purpose of that tool is to workaround compiler bugs. its just to provide the minimum set of flags required to build llvm code. maybe there isnt actually any ? 18:58 @ aKor >> well, if -O2 is *required* to workaround compiler bugs, then it's surely should be included into minimal set of options 18:58 @ aKor >> (as opposed to -O3) 18:59 shining^ >> otherwise we need both a minimum set of flags and an optimal set , working around bugs and all 18:59 shining^ >> why -O2 or -O3 ? maybe I dont want any 19:00 @ aKor >> ok, then just override it 19:00 @ aKor >> -O2 -O0 will yield -O0 19:00 shining^ >> well, its indeed very problematic in mesa, since these flags are appended last :P 19:01 @ aKor >> then the problem is in mesa's build system :) 19:01 shining^ >> so my CFLAGS=-O0 settings didnt work at all. I suppose I will go back to mesa people then .. 19:01 shining^ >> which is where I reported the problem in the first place, of course 19:01 @ aKor >> in the list in PR only -fomit-frame-pointer -fPIC are redundant 19:02 ddunbar_ >> shining^: fwiw, I agree with you the -O doesn't belong there 19:02 ddunbar_ >> or we should have two sets 19:02 @ aKor >> ddunbar_: it depends on the platform and compiler used 19:02 shining^ >> well -fomit-frame-pointer annoyed me too, I specifically build with no-omit-frame-pointer so I can get useful profiles 19:04 ddunbar_ >> aKor: I agree with the principle that it there should be a way to just get the required flags 19:05 @ aKor >> one should just define "required", e.g. "required to just build" or "required to build usable binaries". The latter seems should include more flags :) 19:05 ddunbar_ >> not that many 19:05 ddunbar_ >> I think the -D_GNU belong, and -frtti perhaps, but not much more 19:07 @ aKor >> ddunbar_: rtti settings should always be required, otherwise link will fail 19:07 ddunbar_ >> which is why I mentioned it :) _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev