[llvm-dev] Understanding the version handling in LLVM/Clang/LLD
Sedat Dilek via llvm-dev
[ CC Tom and Hans as LLVM/stable maintainers ]
Hi,
I want to understand the version handling in LLVM/Clang/LLD.
Normally, I build from "release/10.x" Git branch by using the tool
tc-build from ClangBuiltLinux project.
With "llvm-10.0.1-rc1" Git tag I was able to setup a llvm-toolchain
consisting of the projects "clang" and "lld".
A Linux v5.7-rc6 was successfully built.
$ cat /proc/version
Linux version 5.7.0-rc6-2-amd64-clang (sedat...@gmail.com@iniza)
(ClangBuiltLinux clang version 10.0.1
(https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project
f79cd71e145c6fd005ba4dd1238128dfa0dc2cb6), LLD 10.0.1
(https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project
f79cd71e145c6fd005ba4dd1238128dfa0dc2cb6)) #2~bullseye+dileks1 SMP
2020-05-20
I remember when I used official tarballs for RC releases, the version
string should look like:
$ clang-10 --version
dileks clang version 10.0.1rc1
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
InstalledDir: /home/dileks/src/llvm-toolchain/install/bin
$ ld.lld --version
LLD 10.0.1rc1 (compatible with GNU linkers)
$ llvm-as --version
LLVM (http://llvm.org/):
LLVM version 10.0.1rc1
Optimized build.
Default target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Host CPU: sandybridge
My first change:
[ llvm/CMakeLists.txt ]
if(NOT DEFINED LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX)
- set(LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX "")
+ set(LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX "rc1")
endif()
Unfortunately, clang-10 and ld.lld binaries did not show this in their version.
So, I modified clang...
[ clang/CMakeLists.txt ]
-# Unlike PACKAGE_VERSION, CLANG_VERSION does not include LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX.
-set(CLANG_VERSION
"${CLANG_VERSION_MAJOR}.${CLANG_VERSION_MINOR}.${CLANG_VERSION_PATCHLEVEL}")
+if(NOT DEFINED CLANG_VERSION_SUFFIX)
+ set(CLANG_VERSION_SUFFIX ${LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX})
+endif()
+# CLANG_VERSION includes LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX.
+set(CLANG_VERSION
"${CLANG_VERSION_MAJOR}.${CLANG_VERSION_MINOR}.${CLANG_VERSION_PATCHLEVEL}${CLANG_VERSION_SUFFIX}")
...and lld (the same way clang handles its version):
[ lld/CMakeLists.txt ]
-# Compute the LLD version from the LLVM version.
-string(REGEX MATCH "[0-9]+\\.[0-9]+(\\.[0-9]+)?" LLD_VERSION
- ${PACKAGE_VERSION})
+# If LLD_VERSION_* is specified, use it, if not use LLVM_VERSION_*.
+if(NOT DEFINED LLD_VERSION_MAJOR)
+ set(LLD_VERSION_MAJOR ${LLVM_VERSION_MAJOR})
+endif()
+if(NOT DEFINED LLD_VERSION_MINOR)
+ set(LLD_VERSION_MINOR ${LLVM_VERSION_MINOR})
+endif()
+if(NOT DEFINED LLD_VERSION_PATCHLEVEL)
+ set(LLD_VERSION_PATCHLEVEL ${LLVM_VERSION_PATCH})
+endif()
+if(NOT DEFINED LLD_VERSION_SUFFIX)
+ set(LLD_VERSION_SUFFIX ${LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX})
+endif()
+# LLD_VERSION includes LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX.
+set(LLD_VERSION
"${LLD_VERSION_MAJOR}.${LLD_VERSION_MINOR}.${LLD_VERSION_PATCHLEVEL}${LLD_VERSION_SUFFIX}")
message(STATUS "LLD version: ${LLD_VERSION}")
-string(REGEX REPLACE "([0-9]+)\\.[0-9]+(\\.[0-9]+)?" "\\1" LLD_VERSION_MAJOR
- ${LLD_VERSION})
-string(REGEX REPLACE "[0-9]+\\.([0-9]+)(\\.[0-9]+)?" "\\1" LLD_VERSION_MINOR
- ${LLD_VERSION})
-
That worked like expected for clang-10 and ld.lld with "-v" and/or
"--version" options.
A clang-test FAILED... Preprocessor/iwithprefix.c (below when using
LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX = "git"):
This is because of the "rc1" string in the include path ("git" accordingly):
lib/clang/10.0.1rc1/include
To fix this up (maybe someone can help to recognize "git" and "rc[1-9]"):
[ clang/test/Preprocessor/iwithprefix.c ]
-// CHECK: {{/|\\}}lib{{(32|64)?}}{{/|\\}}clang{{/|\\}}{{[.0-9]+}}{{/|\\}}include
+// CHECK: {{/|\\}}lib{{(32|64)?}}{{/|\\}}clang{{/|\\}}{{[.0-9]+}}rc1{{/|\\}}include
I guess this is due to my introduction and usage of CLANG_VERSION_SUFFIX.
Finally, I looked into master Git where I saw:
if(NOT DEFINED LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX)
set(LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX "git")
endif()
And re-checked every place where especially...
${LLVM_VERSION_MAJOR}${LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX}
...is used.
So, I fixed it up by pre-checking for... if(LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX STREQUAL "git")
Example (full patch attached):
[ llvm/cmake/modules/AddLLVM.cmake ]
@@ -541,11 +541,18 @@ function(llvm_add_library name)
# Set SOVERSION on shared libraries that lack explicit SONAME
# specifier, on *nix systems that are not Darwin.
if(UNIX AND NOT APPLE AND NOT ARG_SONAME)
- set_target_properties(${name}
- PROPERTIES
- # Since 4.0.0, the ABI version is indicated by the major version
- SOVERSION ${LLVM_VERSION_MAJOR}${LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX}
- VERSION ${LLVM_VERSION_MAJOR}${LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX})
+ # Since 4.0.0, the ABI version is indicated by the major version
+ if(LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX STREQUAL "git")
+ set_target_properties(${name}
+ PROPERTIES
+ SOVERSION ${LLVM_VERSION_MAJOR}${LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX}
+ VERSION ${LLVM_VERSION_MAJOR}${LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX})
+ else()
+ set_target_properties(${name}
+ PROPERTIES
+ SOVERSION ${LLVM_VERSION_MAJOR}
+ VERSION ${LLVM_VERSION_MAJOR})
+ endif()
endif()
endif()
@@ -567,8 +574,13 @@ function(llvm_add_library name)
if(${output_name} STREQUAL "output_name-NOTFOUND")
set(output_name ${name})
endif()
- set(library_name
${output_name}-${LLVM_VERSION_MAJOR}${LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX})
- set(api_name
${output_name}-${LLVM_VERSION_MAJOR}.${LLVM_VERSION_MINOR}.${LLVM_VERSION_PATCH}${LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX})
+ if(LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX STREQUAL "git")
+ set(library_name
${output_name}-${LLVM_VERSION_MAJOR}${LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX})
+ set(api_name
${output_name}-${LLVM_VERSION_MAJOR}.${LLVM_VERSION_MINOR}.${LLVM_VERSION_PATCH}${LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX})
+ else()
+ set(library_name ${output_name}-${LLVM_VERSION_MAJOR})
+ set(api_name
${output_name}-${LLVM_VERSION_MAJOR}.${LLVM_VERSION_MINOR}.${LLVM_VERSION_PATCH})
+ endif()
set_target_properties(${name} PROPERTIES OUTPUT_NAME ${library_name})
llvm_install_library_symlink(${api_name} ${library_name} SHARED
In the end I was able to build a LLVM/Clang/LLD toolchain which shows
me "10.0.1rc1" version string for all llvm-*, clang-10 and ld.lld
binaries.
As I understand the llvm/stable maintainers do not use or bump
LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX with RC releases as I have expected.
But I see some problems when people do not use "git" as value in
LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX - like me "rc1".
Also, I see an inconsistency for llvm-* binaries when using "git"
whereas Clang and LLD do not show this in their version strings.
I am not sure what the introduction of CLANG_VERSION_SUFFIX and
LLD_VERSION_SUFFIX is all doing.
The only value used for LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX is "git" in master Git branch.
Where is LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX really relevant?
What do you think of the usage of LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX in general?
What do you think to the changes to Clang and LLD versioning?
Thanks.
Regards,
- Sedat -
P.S.: Some useful outputs
FAIL: Clang :: Preprocessor/iwithprefix.c (8758 of 16586)
******************** TEST 'Clang :: Preprocessor/iwithprefix.c' FAILED
********************
Script:
--
: 'RUN: at line 3'; rm -rf
/home/dileks/src/llvm-toolchain/build/stage1/tools/clang/test/Preprocessor/Output/iwithprefix.c.tmp.tmps
: 'RUN: at line 4'; mkdir -p
/home/dileks/src/llvm-toolchain/build/stage1/tools/clang/test/Preprocessor/Output/iwithprefix.c.tmp.tmps/first
/home/dileks/src/llvm-toolchain/build/stage1/tools/clang/test/Preprocessor/Output/iwithprefix.c.tmp.tmps/second
: 'RUN: at line 5';
/home/dileks/src/llvm-toolchain/build/stage1/bin/clang -cc1
-internal-isystem
/home/dileks/src/llvm-toolchain/build/stage1/lib/clang/10.0.1git/include
-nostdsysteminc -triple x86_64-unknown-unknown -iprefix
/home/dileks/src/llvm-toolchain/build/stage1/tools/clang/test/Preprocessor/Output/iwithprefix.c.tmp.tmps/
-iwithprefix second -isystem
/home/dileks/src/llvm-toolchain/build/stage1/tools/clang/test/Preprocessor/Output/iwithprefix.c.tmp.tmps/first
-v /home/dileks/src/llvm-toolchain/tc-build/llvm-project/clang/test/Preprocessor/iwithprefix.c
2> /home/dileks/src/llvm-toolchain/build/stage1/tools/clang/test/Preprocessor/Output/iwithprefix.c.tmp.out
: 'RUN: at line 8';
/home/dileks/src/llvm-toolchain/build/stage1/bin/FileCheck
/home/dileks/src/llvm-toolchain/tc-build/llvm-project/clang/test/Preprocessor/iwithprefix.c
< /home/dileks/src/llvm-toolchain/build/stage1/tools/clang/test/Preprocessor/Output/iwithprefix.c.tmp.out
--
Exit Code: 1
Command Output (stderr):
--
/home/dileks/src/llvm-toolchain/tc-build/llvm-project/clang/test/Preprocessor/iwithprefix.c:12:11:
error: CHECK: expected string not found in input
// CHECK: {{/|\\}}lib{{(32|64)?}}{{/|\\}}clang{{/|\\}}{{[.0-9]+}}{{/|\\}}include
^
<stdin>:6:2: note: scanning from here
/home/dileks/src/llvm-toolchain/build/stage1/lib/clang/10.0.1git/include
^
<stdin>:6:45: note: possible intended match here
/home/dileks/src/llvm-toolchain/build/stage1/lib/clang/10.0.1git/include
[ scripts/run_tests_20200520.sh ]
#!/bin/sh
export LANG=C
export LC_ALL=C
CLANG_TESTS="Preprocessor/iwithprefix.c"
LLVM_LIT_OPTS="--verbose --echo-all-commands --show-all"
cd build/stage1/
for t in $CLANG_TESTS ; do ./bin/llvm-lit $LLVM_LIT_OPTS
./tools/clang/test/$t ; done
- EOT -
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm...@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
Tom Stellard via llvm-dev
> [ Please CC me I ma not subcribed to this mailing-list ]
>
> [ CC Tom and Hans as LLVM/stable maintainers ]
>
> Hi,
>
> I want to understand the version handling in LLVM/Clang/LLD.
>
> Normally, I build from "release/10.x" Git branch by using the tool
> tc-build from ClangBuiltLinux project.
>
> With "llvm-10.0.1-rc1" Git tag I was able to setup a llvm-toolchain
> consisting of the projects "clang" and "lld".
>
> A Linux v5.7-rc6 was successfully built.
>
> $ cat /proc/version
> Linux version 5.7.0-rc6-2-amd64-clang (sedat...@gmail.com@iniza)
> (ClangBuiltLinux clang version 10.0.1
> (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project
> f79cd71e145c6fd005ba4dd1238128dfa0dc2cb6), LLD 10.0.1
> (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project
> f79cd71e145c6fd005ba4dd1238128dfa0dc2cb6)) #2~bullseye+dileks1 SMP
> 2020-05-20
>
> I remember when I used official tarballs for RC releases, the version
> string should look like:
>
> $ clang-10 --version
> dileks clang version 10.0.1rc1
Are you sure about this? I don't remember rc# being added to version
strings, do you have an example of an older release build that does this?
-Tom
Sedat Dilek via llvm-dev
Hi Tom,
yesterday morning I downloaded llvm-5.0.0rc5.src.tar.xz to check
myself before you answered me:
[ llvm-5.0.0rc5.src/CMakeLists.txt ]
if(NOT DEFINED LLVM_VERSION_MAJOR)
set(LLVM_VERSION_MAJOR 5)
endif()
if(NOT DEFINED LLVM_VERSION_MINOR)
set(LLVM_VERSION_MINOR 0)
endif()
if(NOT DEFINED LLVM_VERSION_PATCH)
set(LLVM_VERSION_PATCH 0)
endif()
if(NOT DEFINED LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX)
set(LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX "")
endif()
"I am a bad liar..." (see [1]) or digital dementia :-)?
I have to check my old build-script from my archived Ubuntu/precise
12.04 LTS system.
Darkly I remember I played with some "program-suffix" options.
I will report later.
I will also double check some older binaries from
<https://snapshot.debian.org/> to see if I recall correct and decide
if I need a red or blue pill.
Thanks for taking care!
Regards,
- Sedat -
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-QfPUz1es8
[2] https://snapshot.debian.org/package/llvm-toolchain-3.6/
Sedat Dilek via llvm-dev
> <https://snapshot.debian.org/> to see if I recall correct and decide
> if I need a red or blue pill.
>
OK, I have installed clang-7 version 1:7.0.1~+rc3-1 from
snapshot.debian.org (see instructions below).
In times of SVN we had a tags/RELEASE_XXX/rcY:
# LC_ALL=C clang-7 -v
clang version 7.0.1-+rc3-1 (tags/RELEASE_701/rc3)
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
InstalledDir: /usr/bin
Found candidate GCC installation: /usr/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/10
Found candidate GCC installation: /usr/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/8
Found candidate GCC installation: /usr/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/9
Found candidate GCC installation: /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/10
Found candidate GCC installation: /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/8
Found candidate GCC installation: /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/9
Selected GCC installation: /usr/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/10
Candidate multilib: .;@m64
Candidate multilib: 32;@m32
Candidate multilib: x32;@mx32
Selected multilib: .;@m64
Maybe I mixed that up.
Is that different with switching to Git?
- Sedat -
P.S.: Instructions
LINK: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/26369769/install-packages-from-the-debian-snapshot-archives-repo
LINK: https://snapshot.debian.org/package/llvm-toolchain-7/1%3A7.0.1%7E%2Brc3-2/
# cat /etc/apt/sources.list.d/debian-snapshot.list
deb http://snapshot.debian.org/archive/debian/20181214 unstable main
# cat /etc/apt/preferences.d/990_debian-snapshot
Package: *
Pin: origin "snapshot.debian.org"
Pin-Priority: 990
# apt-get -o Acquire::Check-Valid-Until=false update
# apt-cache policy clang-7
clang-7:
Installed: None
Candidate: 1:7.0.1~+rc3-1
Version table:
1:7.0.1-12 99
99 http://ftp.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64 Packages
99 https://deb.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64 Packages
1:7.0.1-8 500
500 http://ftp.debian.org/debian buster/main amd64 Packages
500 https://deb.debian.org/debian buster/main amd64 Packages
1:7.0.1~+rc3-1 990
990 http://snapshot.debian.org/archive/debian/20181214
unstable/main amd64 Packages
# apt-get install --no-install-recommends --allow-unauthenticated
clang-7=1:7.0.1~+rc3-1 libclang-common-7-dev=1:7.0.1~+rc3-1
libclang1-7=1:7.0.1~+rc3-1 libllvm7=1:7.0.1~+rc3-1 -t unstable -y
Sedat Dilek via llvm-dev
kernel on Debian/testing AMD64.
root@iniza:~# cat /proc/version
Linux version 5.7.0-rc6-4-amd64-clang (sedat...@gmail.com@iniza)
(clang version 10.0.1rc1, LLD 10.0.1rc1) #4~bullseye+dileks1 SMP
2020-05-22
- Sedat -
Sedat Dilek via llvm-dev
dileks@iniza:~/src/llvm-toolchain/clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc1-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bin$
./clang-10 -v
clang version 10.0.1 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git
01636c1eeace5371fef8508c7318df9d7a25b489)
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
InstalledDir: /home/dileks/src/llvm-toolchain/clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc1-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bin/.
Found candidate GCC installation: /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/10
Found candidate GCC installation: /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/8
Found candidate GCC installation: /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/9
Selected GCC installation: /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/10
Candidate multilib: .;@m64
Candidate multilib: 32;@m32
Candidate multilib: x32;@mx32
Selected multilib: .;@m64
dileks@iniza:~/src/llvm-toolchain/clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc1-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bin$
./ld.lld -v
LLD 10.0.1 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git
01636c1eeace5371fef8508c7318df9d7a25b489) (compatible with GNU
linkers)
What is that for a commit-hash-id?
Even on master Git branch:
$ git describe --contains 01636c1eeace5371fef8508c7318df9d7a25b489
fatal: cannot describe '01636c1eeace5371fef8508c7318df9d7a25b489'
$ git describe --contains f79cd71e145c6fd005ba4dd1238128dfa0dc2cb6
llvmorg-10.0.1-rc1
Last commit in release/10.x before llvmorg-10.0.1-rc1 was tagged:
"[arm] Add big-endian version of pcrel fixups for adr instructions"
Commit-hash-id of the tag?
- Sedat -
[1] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/releases/download/llvmorg-10.0.1-rc1/clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc1-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.tar.xz
[2] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/releases/download/llvmorg-10.0.1-rc1/clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc1-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.tar.xz.sig
[3] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/f79cd71e145c6fd005ba4dd1238128dfa0dc2cb6
Sedat Dilek via llvm-dev
Hmm,
$ git show-ref --tags | grep 10.0.1-rc1
f79cd71e145c6fd005ba4dd1238128dfa0dc2cb6 refs/tags/llvmorg-10.0.1-rc1
$ ./clang-10 -v | grep Target
clang version 10.0.1 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git
01636c1eeace5371fef8508c7318df9d7a25b489)
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
The tarball name says
clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc1-***x86_64-pc-linux-gnu***.tar.xz but it's
"Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu".
- Sedat -