Config changes to support target_os="fuchsia"

Config changes to support target_os="fuchsia"

Fuchsia support has been upstreamed into Clang, so the existing
Linux-hosted Clang toolchain binaries in third_party with the correct
--target are sufficient.  Fuchsia is POSIXy so a lot of things will just
work, but some places will require different implementations, so this CL
adds support for is_fuchsia as well as a basic implementation of the
toolchain config.

The SDK (headers, sysroot, etc.) is currently available at
go/fuchsia-sdk until a standard location for it is decided upon.

The near term goal behind this CL is to bring up base/ and net/ on an
fyi bot running Fuchsia.

BUG=706592
Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#471360}
Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/2f97ee120e2d83a87e36e50432b58e790db160ff

[scottmg, 2017-03-29 22:37:52]

Description was changed from

==========
Config changes to support target_os="fuchsia"

BUG=706592
==========

to

==========
Config changes to support target_os="fuchsia"

Fuchsia support has been upstreamed into Clang, so the existing Linux-hosted
Clang toolchain binaries in third_party are sufficient. Fuchsia is POSIXy so a
lot of things just work, but some places will require different implementations,
so support is_fuchsia.

BUG=706592
==========

[scottmg, 2017-03-29 22:38:24]

Description was changed from

==========
Config changes to support target_os="fuchsia"

Fuchsia support has been upstreamed into Clang, so the existing Linux-hosted
Clang toolchain binaries in third_party are sufficient. Fuchsia is POSIXy so a
lot of things just work, but some places will require different implementations,
so support is_fuchsia.

BUG=706592
==========

to

==========
Config changes to support target_os="fuchsia"

Fuchsia support has been upstreamed into Clang, so the existing
Linux-hosted Clang toolchain binaries in third_party are sufficient.
Fuchsia is POSIXy so a lot of things will just work, but some places
will require different implementations, so support is_fuchsia.

BUG=706592
==========

[scottmg, 2017-03-29 22:40:35]

Description was changed from

==========
Config changes to support target_os="fuchsia"

Fuchsia support has been upstreamed into Clang, so the existing
Linux-hosted Clang toolchain binaries in third_party are sufficient.
Fuchsia is POSIXy so a lot of things will just work, but some places
will require different implementations, so support is_fuchsia.

BUG=706592
==========

to

==========
Config changes to support target_os="fuchsia"

Fuchsia support has been upstreamed into Clang, so the existing
Linux-hosted Clang toolchain binaries in third_party are sufficient.
Fuchsia is POSIXy so a lot of things will just work, but some places
will require different implementations, so support is_fuchsia.

The SDK (headers, sysroot, etc.) is currently available at
go/fuchsia-sdk until a standard location for it is decided on.

BUG=706592
==========

[scottmg, 2017-03-29 22:45:34]

Description was changed from

==========
Config changes to support target_os="fuchsia"

Fuchsia support has been upstreamed into Clang, so the existing
Linux-hosted Clang toolchain binaries in third_party are sufficient.
Fuchsia is POSIXy so a lot of things will just work, but some places
will require different implementations, so support is_fuchsia.

The SDK (headers, sysroot, etc.) is currently available at
go/fuchsia-sdk until a standard location for it is decided on.

BUG=706592
==========

to

==========
Config changes to support target_os="fuchsia"

Fuchsia support has been upstreamed into Clang, so the existing
Linux-hosted Clang toolchain binaries in third_party with the correct
--target are sufficient.  Fuchsia is POSIXy so a lot of things will just
work, but some places will require different implementations, so support
this CL adds support for is_fuchsia.

The SDK (headers, sysroot, etc.) is currently available at
go/fuchsia-sdk until a standard location for it is decided on.

The near term goal behind this CL is to bring up base/ and net/ on an
fyi bot.

BUG=706592
==========

[scottmg, 2017-03-29 22:45:53]

Patchset #2 (id:20001) has been deleted

[scottmg, 2017-03-29 22:50:54]

Description was changed from

==========
Config changes to support target_os="fuchsia"

Fuchsia support has been upstreamed into Clang, so the existing
Linux-hosted Clang toolchain binaries in third_party with the correct
--target are sufficient.  Fuchsia is POSIXy so a lot of things will just
work, but some places will require different implementations, so support
this CL adds support for is_fuchsia.

The SDK (headers, sysroot, etc.) is currently available at
go/fuchsia-sdk until a standard location for it is decided on.

The near term goal behind this CL is to bring up base/ and net/ on an
fyi bot.

BUG=706592
==========

to

==========
Config changes to support target_os="fuchsia"

Fuchsia support has been upstreamed into Clang, so the existing
Linux-hosted Clang toolchain binaries in third_party with the correct
--target are sufficient.  Fuchsia is POSIXy so a lot of things will just
work, but some places will require different implementations, so support
this CL adds support for is_fuchsia as well as a basic implementation of
the toolchain config.

The SDK (headers, sysroot, etc.) is currently available at
go/fuchsia-sdk until a standard location for it is decided upon.

The near term goal behind this CL is to bring up base/ and net/ on an
fyi bot running Fuchsia.

BUG=706592
==========

[scottmg, 2017-03-29 22:51:18]

Description was changed from

==========
Config changes to support target_os="fuchsia"

Fuchsia support has been upstreamed into Clang, so the existing
Linux-hosted Clang toolchain binaries in third_party with the correct
--target are sufficient.  Fuchsia is POSIXy so a lot of things will just
work, but some places will require different implementations, so support
this CL adds support for is_fuchsia as well as a basic implementation of
the toolchain config.

The SDK (headers, sysroot, etc.) is currently available at
go/fuchsia-sdk until a standard location for it is decided upon.

The near term goal behind this CL is to bring up base/ and net/ on an
fyi bot running Fuchsia.

BUG=706592
==========

to

==========
Config changes to support target_os="fuchsia"

Fuchsia support has been upstreamed into Clang, so the existing
Linux-hosted Clang toolchain binaries in third_party with the correct
--target are sufficient.  Fuchsia is POSIXy so a lot of things will just
work, but some places will require different implementations, so support
this CL adds support for is_fuchsia as well as a basic implementation of
the toolchain config.

The SDK (headers, sysroot, etc.) is currently available at
go/fuchsia-sdk until a standard location for it is decided upon.

The near term goal behind this CL is to bring up base/ and net/ on an
fyi bot running Fuchsia.

BUG=706592
==========

[scottmg, 2017-03-29 22:51:18]

scottmg@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ brettw@chromium.org

[scottmg, 2017-03-29 22:53:17]

Brett, I'm guessing you likely have Feelings about this. Could you review?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/40001/build/build_config.h
File build/build_config.h (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/40001/build/build_config.h#ol...
build/build_config.h:79: defined(OS_NETBSD) || defined(OS_OPENBSD) ||
defined(OS_SOLARIS) ||   \
We wanted to be really sure about BSD, Solaris, and Android.

[scottmg, 2017-05-01 20:45:31]

Patchset #4 (id:80001) has been deleted

[scottmg, 2017-05-01 20:46:31]

Description was changed from

==========
Config changes to support target_os="fuchsia"

Fuchsia support has been upstreamed into Clang, so the existing
Linux-hosted Clang toolchain binaries in third_party with the correct
--target are sufficient.  Fuchsia is POSIXy so a lot of things will just
work, but some places will require different implementations, so support
this CL adds support for is_fuchsia as well as a basic implementation of
the toolchain config.

The SDK (headers, sysroot, etc.) is currently available at
go/fuchsia-sdk until a standard location for it is decided upon.

The near term goal behind this CL is to bring up base/ and net/ on an
fyi bot running Fuchsia.

BUG=706592
==========

to

==========
Config changes to support target_os="fuchsia"

Fuchsia support has been upstreamed into Clang, so the existing
Linux-hosted Clang toolchain binaries in third_party with the correct
--target are sufficient.  Fuchsia is POSIXy so a lot of things will just
work, but some places will require different implementations, so this CL
adds support for is_fuchsia as well as a basic implementation of the
toolchain config.

The SDK (headers, sysroot, etc.) is currently available at
go/fuchsia-sdk until a standard location for it is decided upon.

The near term goal behind this CL is to bring up base/ and net/ on an
fyi bot running Fuchsia.

BUG=706592
==========

[scottmg, 2017-05-01 20:47:34]

Patchset #4 (id:100001) has been deleted

[scottmg, 2017-05-01 20:48:59]

Patchset #4 (id:120001) has been deleted

[scottmg, 2017-05-01 20:50:07]

(rebased after AIX changes landed)

[scottmg, 2017-05-09 19:30:39]

The CQ bit was checked by scottmg@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[scottmg, 2017-05-09 19:30:44]

The CQ bit was unchecked by scottmg@chromium.org

[scottmg, 2017-05-09 19:31:35]

The CQ bit was checked by scottmg@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-09 19:32:14]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch.

Follow status at:
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-09 21:35:12]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-09 21:35:13]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  android_arm64_dbg_recipe on master.tryserver.chromium.android (JOB_FAILED,
https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.android/builders/android_arm6...)
  android_compile_dbg on master.tryserver.chromium.android (JOB_FAILED,
https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.android/builders/android_comp...)
  android_n5x_swarming_rel on master.tryserver.chromium.android (JOB_FAILED,
https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.android/builders/android_n5x_...)

[scottmg, 2017-05-10 18:10:55]

The CQ bit was checked by scottmg@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-10 18:12:34]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch.

Follow status at:
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-10 18:21:23]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-10 18:21:24]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  android_arm64_dbg_recipe on master.tryserver.chromium.android (JOB_FAILED,
https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.android/builders/android_arm6...)
  android_compile_dbg on master.tryserver.chromium.android (JOB_FAILED,
https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.android/builders/android_comp...)
  android_n5x_swarming_rel on master.tryserver.chromium.android (JOB_FAILED,
https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.android/builders/android_n5x_...)

[scottmg, 2017-05-10 18:34:41]

The CQ bit was checked by scottmg@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-10 18:36:39]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch.

Follow status at:
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[scottmg, 2017-05-10 18:50:30]

(rebased after s390 (what the?))

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-10 21:34:30]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-10 21:34:31]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[Nico, 2017-05-11 15:03:15]

thakis@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ thakis@chromium.org

[Nico, 2017-05-11 15:03:16]

Looks overall good to me (not that it matters much), except for the deprecation
warning thing below.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/180001/build/config/compiler/...
File build/config/compiler/BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/180001/build/config/compiler/...
build/config/compiler/BUILD.gn:346: # referenced.
Could you just add -l flags for those instead, to not lose --as-needed for
everything?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/180001/build/config/fuchsia/B...
File build/config/fuchsia/BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/180001/build/config/fuchsia/B...
build/config/fuchsia/BUILD.gn:16: # deprecated interfaces.
This is not good. We've tried this setup before a few times and it just doesn't
work, it just causes lots of warnings to be printed. Deprecation annotations are
mostly useless in practice. If someone wants to deprecate something, they should
update the codebase so that their thing is no longer used, and then delete their
thing. Nothing else works.

[scottmg, 2017-05-11 16:36:10]

Thanks!

https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/180001/build/config/compiler/...
File build/config/compiler/BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/180001/build/config/compiler/...
build/config/compiler/BUILD.gn:346: # referenced.
On 2017/05/11 15:03:16, Nico wrote:
> Could you just add -l flags for those instead, to not lose --as-needed for
> everything?

Probably, yeah. Maybe what I'll do in this CL is just remove this, then in a
future CL that actually links something, it can add what it needs.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/180001/build/config/fuchsia/B...
File build/config/fuchsia/BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/180001/build/config/fuchsia/B...
build/config/fuchsia/BUILD.gn:16: # deprecated interfaces.
On 2017/05/11 15:03:16, Nico wrote:
> This is not good. We've tried this setup before a few times and it just
doesn't
> work, it just causes lots of warnings to be printed. Deprecation annotations
are
> mostly useless in practice. If someone wants to deprecate something, they
should
> update the codebase so that their thing is no longer used, and then delete
their
> thing. Nothing else works.

Removed. (I think I just copy-pasta'd that from elsewhere.)

[scottmg, 2017-05-11 16:36:18]

The CQ bit was checked by scottmg@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-11 16:36:58]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch.

Follow status at:
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[Nico, 2017-05-11 16:42:05]

Thanks! Sorry, found something else:

https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/180001/build/config/fuchsia/B...
File build/config/fuchsia/BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/180001/build/config/fuchsia/B...
build/config/fuchsia/BUILD.gn:16: # deprecated interfaces.
On 2017/05/11 16:36:10, scottmg wrote:
> On 2017/05/11 15:03:16, Nico wrote:
> > This is not good. We've tried this setup before a few times and it just
> doesn't
> > work, it just causes lots of warnings to be printed. Deprecation annotations
> are
> > mostly useless in practice. If someone wants to deprecate something, they
> should
> > update the codebase so that their thing is no longer used, and then delete
> their
> > thing. Nothing else works.
> 
> Removed. (I think I just copy-pasta'd that from elsewhere.)

Thanks. Complained at all places I could find you could've copied this from too.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/200001/build/config/fuchsia/B...
File build/config/fuchsia/BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/200001/build/config/fuchsia/B...
build/config/fuchsia/BUILD.gn:1: # Copyright 2017 The Fuchsia Authors. All
rights reserved.
Probably The Chromium given it's in src?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/200001/build/config/fuchsia/B...
build/config/fuchsia/BUILD.gn:10: config("werror") {
This is in build/config/compiler/BUILD.gn too, can't you share that somehow?
(also other flags below)

[scottmg, 2017-05-11 17:16:17]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/200001/build/config/fuchsia/B...
File build/config/fuchsia/BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/200001/build/config/fuchsia/B...
build/config/fuchsia/BUILD.gn:1: # Copyright 2017 The Fuchsia Authors. All
rights reserved.
On 2017/05/11 16:42:05, Nico wrote:
> Probably The Chromium given it's in src?

Aha, that would be where I copied the Wno-error from. :)

https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/200001/build/config/fuchsia/B...
build/config/fuchsia/BUILD.gn:10: config("werror") {
On 2017/05/11 16:42:05, Nico wrote:
> This is in build/config/compiler/BUILD.gn too, can't you share that somehow?
> (also other flags below)

Removed both werror and icf. Werror is picked up from chromium_code or
no_chromium_code. It looks like --icf=all also gets picked up from
build/config/compiler:compiler so was unnecessary.

The --std and --threads are slighty different, so I'll leave those for now.

[Nico, 2017-05-11 17:43:38]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/220001/build/config/compiler/...
File build/config/compiler/BUILD.gn (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/220001/build/config/compiler/...
build/config/compiler/BUILD.gn:342: ldflags += [ "-Wl,--as-needed" ]
Removing this probably wasn't intentional

https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/220001/build/config/fuchsia/B...
File build/config/fuchsia/BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/220001/build/config/fuchsia/B...
build/config/fuchsia/BUILD.gn:13: cflags_cc = [ "-std=c++14" ]
Hm, I'd pretty strongly prefer if we could use the same language standard
everywhere. So far we've been able to do that – and given that the goal is to
build base/, that should be enough for chromium too, right?

On that note, which c++ standard library are you going to use? We're working on
switching linux to libc++; is fuchsia on libstd++ or libc++? And is your C
library glibc, musl, or something else?

[scottmg, 2017-05-11 17:52:53]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/220001/build/config/fuchsia/B...
File build/config/fuchsia/BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/220001/build/config/fuchsia/B...
build/config/fuchsia/BUILD.gn:13: cflags_cc = [ "-std=c++14" ]
On 2017/05/11 17:43:37, Nico wrote:
> Hm, I'd pretty strongly prefer if we could use the same language standard
> everywhere. So far we've been able to do that – and given that the goal is to
> build base/, that should be enough for chromium too, right?

OK, I was thinking it would match the OS headers, but it probably doesn't matter
in any case at least for the c++ setting. I could more imagine c11 being a
problem (or maybe that's the default anyway?), but I guess we can remove it, and
then complain upstream to get headers that work with whatever our default is, if
it becomes a problem.

> 
> On that note, which c++ standard library are you going to use? We're working
on
> switching linux to libc++; is fuchsia on libstd++ or libc++? And is your C
> library glibc, musl, or something else?

libc++ and musl afaik.

[scottmg, 2017-05-11 17:52:57]

The CQ bit was checked by scottmg@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-11 17:54:19]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch.

Follow status at:
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[scottmg, 2017-05-11 17:58:27]

The CQ bit was checked by scottmg@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[scottmg, 2017-05-11 17:59:18]

Patchset #10 (id:260001) has been deleted

[scottmg, 2017-05-11 18:00:09]

The CQ bit was checked by scottmg@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-11 18:00:15]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch.

Follow status at:
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[Nico, 2017-05-11 18:04:14]

patch set 10 lgtm, but one more question

https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/280001/build/config/fuchsia/B...
File build/config/fuchsia/BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/280001/build/config/fuchsia/B...
build/config/fuchsia/BUILD.gn:27: cflags = [ "--sysroot=" + rebase_path(sysroot,
root_build_dir) ]
https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/build/config/posix/BUILD.gn?type=cs&q=%5...
doesn't work for you for some reason, yes?

[scottmg, 2017-05-11 18:16:36]

Soon everything will be deleted. Thanks!

https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/280001/build/config/fuchsia/B...
File build/config/fuchsia/BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/280001/build/config/fuchsia/B...
build/config/fuchsia/BUILD.gn:27: cflags = [ "--sysroot=" + rebase_path(sysroot,
root_build_dir) ]
On 2017/05/11 18:04:14, Nico wrote:
>
https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/build/config/posix/BUILD.gn?type=cs&q=%5...
> doesn't work for you for some reason, yes?

Huh, I thought it didn't (I have no idea why I would have added !is_fuchsia
there otherwise) but I just tried it now and it seems fine.

[Nico, 2017-05-11 18:22:53]

lgtm++, I'm afraid parts of the patch are in fact needed :-)

On 2017/05/11 18:16:36, scottmg wrote:
> Soon everything will be deleted. Thanks!
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/280001/build/config/fuchsia/B...
> File build/config/fuchsia/BUILD.gn (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/280001/build/config/fuchsia/B...
> build/config/fuchsia/BUILD.gn:27: cflags = [ "--sysroot=" +
rebase_path(sysroot,
> root_build_dir) ]
> On 2017/05/11 18:04:14, Nico wrote:
> >
>
https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/build/config/posix/BUILD.gn?type=cs&q=%5...
> > doesn't work for you for some reason, yes?
> 
> Huh, I thought it didn't (I have no idea why I would have added !is_fuchsia
> there otherwise)

You did? Not in this patch though?

> but I just tried it now and it seems fine.

[scottmg, 2017-05-11 18:24:24]

On 2017/05/11 18:22:53, Nico wrote:
> lgtm++, I'm afraid parts of the patch are in fact needed :-)
> 
> On 2017/05/11 18:16:36, scottmg wrote:
> > Soon everything will be deleted. Thanks!
> > 
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/280001/build/config/fuchsia/B...
> > File build/config/fuchsia/BUILD.gn (right):
> > 
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/280001/build/config/fuchsia/B...
> > build/config/fuchsia/BUILD.gn:27: cflags = [ "--sysroot=" +
> rebase_path(sysroot,
> > root_build_dir) ]
> > On 2017/05/11 18:04:14, Nico wrote:
> > >
> >
>
https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/build/config/posix/BUILD.gn?type=cs&q=%5...
> > > doesn't work for you for some reason, yes?
> > 
> > Huh, I thought it didn't (I have no idea why I would have added !is_fuchsia
> > there otherwise)
> 
> You did? Not in this patch though?

Oops, yeah, in the next CL. Anyway, obviously better like this.

> 
> > but I just tried it now and it seems fine.

[scottmg, 2017-05-11 20:41:27]

The CQ bit was checked by scottmg@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-11 20:42:49]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch.

Follow status at:
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[miu, 2017-05-11 21:18:09]

miu@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ miu@chromium.org

[miu, 2017-05-11 21:18:13]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/300001/build/config/BUILDCONF...
File build/config/BUILDCONFIG.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/300001/build/config/BUILDCONF...
build/config/BUILDCONFIG.gn:399: sources_assignment_filter = []
Given recent discussion in the "Fuchsia porting guide for Chromium" doc, can we
add fuchsia filters in this change too?

  if (is_fuchsia) {
    sources_assignment_filter += [
      "*_fuchsia.h",
      "*_fuchsia.cc",
      ...

[miu, 2017-05-11 21:18:54]

On 2017/05/11 21:18:13, miu wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/300001/build/config/BUILDCONF...
> File build/config/BUILDCONFIG.gn (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/300001/build/config/BUILDCONF...
> build/config/BUILDCONFIG.gn:399: sources_assignment_filter = []
> Given recent discussion in the "Fuchsia porting guide for Chromium" doc, can
we
> add fuchsia filters in this change too?
> 
>   if (is_fuchsia) {
>     sources_assignment_filter += [
>       "*_fuchsia.h",
>       "*_fuchsia.cc",
>       ...

Oh, actually, I see the commit is in-progress. I'm happy to follow-up on this,
or would you like to?

[Nico, 2017-05-11 21:22:19]

The very-long-time-plan for sources_assignment_filter is that it should go
away, replaced by explicit is_foo checks. So Fuchsia should probably use
that new style from day 1.

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 5:18 PM, <miu@chromium.org> wrote:

> On 2017/05/11 21:18:13, miu wrote:
> >
> https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/300001/
> build/config/BUILDCONFIG.gn
> > File build/config/BUILDCONFIG.gn (right):
> >
> >
> https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/300001/
> build/config/BUILDCONFIG.gn#newcode399
> > build/config/BUILDCONFIG.gn:399: sources_assignment_filter = []
> > Given recent discussion in the "Fuchsia porting guide for Chromium" doc,
> can
> we
> > add fuchsia filters in this change too?
> >
> > if (is_fuchsia) {
> > sources_assignment_filter += [
> > "*_fuchsia.h",
> > "*_fuchsia.cc",
> > ...
>
> Oh, actually, I see the commit is in-progress. I'm happy to follow-up on
> this,
> or would you like to?
>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Chromium-reviews" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.

[scottmg, 2017-05-11 21:24:53]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/300001/build/config/BUILDCONF...
File build/config/BUILDCONFIG.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/300001/build/config/BUILDCONF...
build/config/BUILDCONFIG.gn:399: sources_assignment_filter = []
On 2017/05/11 21:18:11, miu wrote:
> Given recent discussion in the "Fuchsia porting guide for Chromium" doc, can
we
> add fuchsia filters in this change too?
> 
>   if (is_fuchsia) {
>     sources_assignment_filter += [
>       "*_fuchsia.h",
>       "*_fuchsia.cc",
>       ...
> 

That might be pleasant, but per Brett's comment, we're trying to avoid that,
especially for niche OSs. Until we have more than a handful of Fuchsia files, I
think if (is_fuchsia) in the sources is fine.

[jamesr1, 2017-05-11 22:00:31]

jamesr@google.com changed reviewers:
+ jamesr@google.com

[jamesr1, 2017-05-11 22:00:32]

FWIW I strongly support trying to move away from sources_assignment_filter in as
many places as possible.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/180001/build/config/compiler/...
File build/config/compiler/BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/180001/build/config/compiler/...
build/config/compiler/BUILD.gn:344: if (!is_fuchsia) {
we can wrap just -lmxio with this, i.e.

ldflags += [ "-Wl,--as-needed", "-lmxio", "-Wl,--no-as-needed" ]

in the "compiler" config

[jamesr1, 2017-05-11 22:00:51]

jamesr@google.com changed reviewers:
- jamesr@google.com

[jamesr1, 2017-05-11 22:02:13]

On 2017/05/11 at 22:00:32, jamesr1 wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/180001/build/config/compiler/...
> File build/config/compiler/BUILD.gn (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002/diff/180001/build/config/compiler/...
> build/config/compiler/BUILD.gn:344: if (!is_fuchsia) {
> we can wrap just -lmxio with this, i.e.
> 
> ldflags += [ "-Wl,--as-needed", "-lmxio", "-Wl,--no-as-needed" ]
> 
> in the "compiler" config

Sorry, this comment is for a stale patch (been using gerrit so much I forgot how
to use rietveld)

[jamesr1, 2017-05-11 22:04:20]

On 2017/05/11 at 17:52:53, scottmg wrote:
> > On that note, which c++ standard library are you going to use? We're working
on
> > switching linux to libc++; is fuchsia on libstd++ or libc++? And is your C
> > library glibc, musl, or something else?
> 
> libc++ and musl afaik.

To be precise libc++ from llvm and fuchsia's libc which is based off of musl but
diverged a fair bit at this point.  We tell libc++ we're musl, but in general
nothing else should need to know about the musl history.

[jamesr1, 2017-05-11 22:04:50]

jamesr@google.com changed reviewers:
+ jamesr@google.com

[jamesr1, 2017-05-11 22:05:07]

jamesr@google.com changed reviewers:
- jamesr@google.com

[Nico, 2017-05-11 22:06:42]

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 6:04 PM, <jamesr@google.com> wrote:

> On 2017/05/11 at 17:52:53, scottmg wrote:
> > > On that note, which c++ standard library are you going to use? We're
> working
> on
> > > switching linux to libc++; is fuchsia on libstd++ or libc++? And is
> your C
> > > library glibc, musl, or something else?
> >
> > libc++ and musl afaik.
>
> To be precise libc++ from llvm and fuchsia's libc which is based off of
> musl but
> diverged a fair bit at this point. We tell libc++ we're musl, but in
> general
> nothing else should need to know about the musl history.
>

Do you have a system libc++.so, or are apps supposed to link it statically?

If there's a system libc++.so, do you see any issues with chrome statically
linking a different one? You probably don't have C++ system interfaces but
C instead?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Chromium-reviews" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-11 23:36:02]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-11 23:36:04]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[brettw, 2017-05-12 17:28:57]

BUILDCONFIG.gn LGTM

[scottmg, 2017-05-12 17:29:27]

The CQ bit was checked by scottmg@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-12 17:30:15]

CQ is trying da patch.

Follow status at:
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-12 17:50:43]

CQ is committing da patch.

Bot data: {"patchset_id": 300001, "attempt_start_ts": 1494610167687740,
"parent_rev": "498c838a685f07dda12f74620f9a13ae0cf62383", "commit_rev":
"2f97ee120e2d83a87e36e50432b58e790db160ff"}

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-12 17:50:56]

Description was changed from

==========
Config changes to support target_os="fuchsia"

Fuchsia support has been upstreamed into Clang, so the existing
Linux-hosted Clang toolchain binaries in third_party with the correct
--target are sufficient.  Fuchsia is POSIXy so a lot of things will just
work, but some places will require different implementations, so this CL
adds support for is_fuchsia as well as a basic implementation of the
toolchain config.

The SDK (headers, sysroot, etc.) is currently available at
go/fuchsia-sdk until a standard location for it is decided upon.

The near term goal behind this CL is to bring up base/ and net/ on an
fyi bot running Fuchsia.

BUG=706592
==========

to

==========
Config changes to support target_os="fuchsia"

Fuchsia support has been upstreamed into Clang, so the existing
Linux-hosted Clang toolchain binaries in third_party with the correct
--target are sufficient.  Fuchsia is POSIXy so a lot of things will just
work, but some places will require different implementations, so this CL
adds support for is_fuchsia as well as a basic implementation of the
toolchain config.

The SDK (headers, sysroot, etc.) is currently available at
go/fuchsia-sdk until a standard location for it is decided upon.

The near term goal behind this CL is to bring up base/ and net/ on an
fyi bot running Fuchsia.

BUG=706592

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2784063002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#471360}
Committed:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/2f97ee120e2d83a87e36e50432b5...
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-12 17:50:58]

Committed patchset #11 (id:300001) as
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/2f97ee120e2d83a87e36e50432b5...