[LLVMdev] Optional Target Builds
Vikram S. Adve
vadve at cs.uiuc.edu
Fri Apr 22 07:48:39 PDT 2005
On Apr 22, 2005, at 9:52 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
> 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
>> 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?
This makes sense to to me too, except I agree with a couple of the
others that it would be most convenient to build only for the host
machine by default. That is nearly always needed and most likely to
minimize redundant compile/link time.
> 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.
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
More information about the llvm-dev