<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Jun 21, 2012, at 3:43 AM, Christophe Duvernois <<a href="mailto:christophe.duvernois@gmail.com">christophe.duvernois@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Hi <br><br>Speaking about a good existing build system in python, there is waf : <a href="http://code.google.com/p/waf/">http://code.google.com/p/waf/</a><br>It is in my opinion far more better than cmake on any point (performance, flexibility, easy to use, ...) …</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Please don't bring up yet-another-build-system. The only build systems that are relevant to this discussion are CMake and autoconf+make, i.e., those that are already supported by LLVM/Clang and in active use by a significant portion of the LLVM/Clang community.</div><div><br></div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>- Doug</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote">2012/6/21 Jean-Daniel Dupas <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:devlists@shadowlab.org" target="_blank">devlists@shadowlab.org</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><br><div><div>Le 21 juin 2012 à 11:34, Manuel Klimek a écrit :</div><div class="im"><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font><div class="gmail_quote">
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Charles Davis <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cdavis@mymail.mines.edu" target="_blank">cdavis@mymail.mines.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><br><div><div><div>On Jun 20, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:</div>
<br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font><div class="gmail_quote" style="font-size:12px">On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Nick Lewycky <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nlewycky@google.com" target="_blank">nlewycky@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">
<font><div>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?</div>
<div><br></div><div>If nobody pipes up, I might actually try actually removing it!</div></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>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.</div>
</div></font></div></blockquote></div>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.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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 ...</div>
<div><br></div><div>(not saying that cmake is perfect)</div></div></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>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.</div>
</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br><div>
<span style="text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;font-variant:normal;text-align:auto;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;line-height:normal;border-collapse:separate;text-transform:none;font-size:medium;white-space:normal;font-family:Helvetica;word-spacing:0px"><div>
-- Jean-Daniel</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></span><br>
</div>
<br></font></span></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu">LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu</a> <a href="http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/" target="_blank">http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev" target="_blank">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>
_______________________________________________<br>cfe-dev mailing list<br><a href="mailto:cfe-dev@cs.uiuc.edu">cfe-dev@cs.uiuc.edu</a><br>http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev<br></blockquote></div><br></body></html>