[LLVMdev] An LLVM 1.3 Request

[Chris Lattner]

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Reid Spencer wrote:
>
> > I guess I don't understand why making these changes is not
> > straight-forward and incremental.  It seems as though #1 is just strictly
> > local changes to llvm/test/Programs/Makefile.programs, with no other
> > changes.  This can be tested and worked on exactly as you mentioned, and
> > there should be zero breakage in the process.
> >
> Not quite. The configure script contains hard coded partial paths from
> the root of the tree to all Makefiles, including those in
> llvm/test/Programs directory. I can't go changing the locations of files
> and the contents of the makefiles without also changing configure.ac. If
> I change configure.ac then it affects everyone. If it affects everyone,
> I need to do it on a branch. I can't do that without cvs access.

By far the *biggest* change that needs to be made is to get the
test/Programs makefile independent of the rest of the makefile stuff.
At least this *certainly* can be done by just changing Makefile.programs.

> > Once that is done, the configure script can be split into two pieces,
> > again, without breaking anything.  Once the makefiles and configure script
> > are changed, it shouldn't matter where the directory lives.
>
> So, what you're saying is that I provide you with a patch that excises
> all of test/Programs/... from the llvm configure.ac and removes all the
> related --enable-xyz options. You check this in.

No, I would check in two patches, the one to remove it, and the one to add
it in the new location.

> Then what? You've now disabled your testing environment waiting for a
> subsequent patch from me that restores it in "some other directory". Or,

Why not check in both patches at the same time?

> were you going to check the configure.ac change into a branch.  If so,
> then I have to work out of a branch that you're administering and we
> have synchronization problems.  This is the part that gets time
> consuming.
>
> I can't retain things in both worlds because autoconf won't configure
> anything that isn't in a directory that is a descendant of
> ${top_srcdir}.

I have no idea about the configure issues, as I (intentionally :) know
very little about it.  Just the makefile changes alone, which I do
understand, are clearly a starting point.

> Can't we just be subversive and use subversion? :)
> You invited that comment :)

I know.  Perhaps someday we can make the change.  In fact, there are
CVS->subversion gateways.  If there was a CVS->subversion gateway,
couldn't you do your development on a subversion branch from the gateway?

-Chris

-- 
http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/
http://www.nondot.org/~sabre/Projects/