[LLVMdev] Optional Target Builds
sabre at nondot.org
Fri Apr 22 07:52:54 PDT 2005
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Andrew Lenharth wrote:
>> Does that make sense or do you have a better idea?
> Valid options for both are:
> the names of the targets
> where all is the default for both items
> I have in my tree the patch to partially support this (well the link
> half of it). Right now I am controlling linking with a variable in the
> toplevel makefile until a config patch like this goes in.
I think this makes the most sense. I assume that enabled-but-not-linked
targets are built into shared objects?
My one concern about this change is that it makes it more likely for
people to break the build on hosts not equal to their own. However, as
long as the nightly testers due the full build, I dpm
t think this is a big problem.
More information about the llvm-dev