[LLVMdev] Optional Target Builds

Reid Spencer reid at x10sys.com
Fri Apr 22 09:59:45 PDT 2005

On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 11:39 -0500, Misha Brukman wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 08:54:07AM -0700, Reid Spencer wrote:
> > There has been some debate about the default value. I tend to agree
> > with Chris on this. The default should be "all" so that everything
> > gets tested by default. More sophisticated users can limit the targets
> > that are built by merely typing -enable-targets=host on the configure
> > line; not a big deal in my books.
> I would claim that from a user's perspective, default should be a
> compiler that generates code for the host platform, and nothing else.
> As we gather more and more backends, the "default" compilation will take
> longer and longer.
> A developer who wishes to make sure none of his changes break other
> targets and the nightly tester should run with `--enable-targets=all',
> but it doesn't make sense (to me) to make it the default.
Okay, we need to get this resolved. So far we have two camps: (a) those
that want the default to be "all" and (b) those that want the default to
be "host-only". This is easy enough to change in the configure script;
we just need to make a decision. So far we have:

(a) - Reid, Chris, Andrew Lenharth
(b) - Misha, Vikram, Al Stone

Since we're split down the middle (including the Oversight committee),
I'm not sure which way to go.

Anyone want to change their vote? Any other voters? Any other way to
resolve this?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20050422/506eaee7/attachment.sig>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list