[cfe-dev] is configure+make dead yet?
klimek at google.com
Thu Jun 21 02:34:30 PDT 2012
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Charles Davis <cdavis at mymail.mines.edu>wrote:
> On Jun 20, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Nick Lewycky <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.
> Now hold on there. I thought Daniel was supposed to be working on a new
> build system, based almost entirely in Python, specifically because he
> thought CMake was, uh... inadequate (to say the least). I've CC'd him in
> the hopes of getting his opinion.
I'd be interested what about CMake is inadequate. The way CMake is used in
llvm seems somewhat suboptimal, but I don't see how doing the same thing in
python would be better ...
(not saying that cmake is perfect)
> On the other hand, +1 for gutting autoconf. I hate it, and it needs to die.
> P.S. -- Chandler, please increase the font size in your mail client. It's
> very small and hard to read.
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cfe-dev