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

Jean-Daniel Dupas devlists at shadowlab.org
Thu Jun 21 03:00:17 PDT 2012

Le 21 juin 2012 à 11:34, Manuel Klimek a écrit :

> 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)

It never was about writing a build system in python to replace existing one, it was about unifying the way (libraries) dependencies are expressed in LLVM by cmake and configure/make.

-- Jean-Daniel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20120621/78f24b29/attachment.html>

More information about the cfe-dev mailing list