[cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] is configure+make dead yet?

Ashok Nalkund ashoknn at qualcomm.com
Wed Jun 20 17:44:33 PDT 2012

On 6/20/2012 5:19 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com
> <mailto:nlewycky at google.com>> wrote:
>     Is there anybody who is certain that our autoconf dependency needs
>     to stay around? Are there developers stuck on systems that don't
>     have a recent enough cmake in their most recent release, or maybe
>     are using some features from configure+make that the cmake build
>     system doesn't implement?
>     If nobody pipes up, I might actually try actually removing it!
> There are definitely missing features in cmake. I'm actually working on
> adding one of them: support for compiler-rt. There are likely some others.
> That said, I actually agree -- I think that cmake, while ugly, can be
> made to support all of our use cases. There are some use cases that
> autoconf+make can't support, so I'd rather we just pick cmake and bang
> on it until it works the way we want.

Please dont remove it yet. I'm relying on configure's '--enable-libcpp' 
flag to compile LLVM/clang using clang++ and libc++. I couldnt find an 
equivalent using cmake. Please see my mails titled "Compiling libc++ 
from within llvm (3.1)" and "Build llvm/clang with cmake vs configure 
produces different set of artifacts".

If you have any suggestions, I'm most willing to try it out. I dont know 
enough about CMake but I tried to go through the cmake build files.


More information about the cfe-dev mailing list