[cfe-dev] is configure+make dead yet?
gkeiser at arxan.com
Wed Jun 27 11:11:36 PDT 2012
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cfe-dev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu]
> On Behalf Of David Röthlisberger
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 8:56 AM
> To: clang-dev Developers; LLVM Developers Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] is configure+make dead yet?
> On 21 Jun 2012, at 01:19, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> > 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 far I have assumed that "use cases that autoconf+make can't support"
> is referring to Windows support. (I am not a Windows user myself.)
> But the following two statements left me wondering: Are people actually
> using LLVM's CMake build system on Windows? Or are they using the
> autoconf system with something like Cygwin / MinGW?
FWIW I use CMake + Visual Studio 2010 to build on Windows at home. I won't install on my machine nor would I impose Cygwin/MinGW on anyone I liked.
> > CMake is not even capable of [...] setting up project files to build
> > LLVM as a DLL so they can build a compiler atop it
> -- Mason Wheeler, On 27 Jun 2012, at 13:29
> > CMake generates gigantic project files for IDEs like Visual Studio and
> > Xcode, which causes those IDEs to behavior very poorly, with long
> > project load times and sluggish overall performance. It's a
> > significant productivity problem.
devenv.exe llvm.sln /Build "Release|Win32" completes a couple of minutes faster on Windows for me than make -j8 does on Mac/Linux on similarly spec'd processors. I've seen several comments like this (including mentions of VS having poor multithreading), but I haven't seen this in reality.
> -- Douglas Gregor, On 26 Jun 2012, at 17:42 (on thread "CMake Question: Do
> we need to support stand-alone builds?")
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
More information about the cfe-dev