[LLVMdev] Removing $(LLVM_SRC_ROOT)/autoconf dependensies in Stacker, llvm-java [PATCH]

[Reid Spencer]

Personally, I don't think LLVM projects should need much in the way of
autoconf stuff. They certainly don't need to replicate things like
install-sh and mkinstalldirs. I'd vote for taking these out of the
projects rather than making the makefiles deal with them. I think in
most cases these are just historical artifacts that have been with the
projects since long before the new Makefile.rules of last fall. 

More below ..

On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 15:40, Vladimir Merzliakov wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> In current LLVM CVS:
> 
> llvm/projects/Stacker/Makefile.common.in
> llvm/projects/sample/Makefile.common.in
> llvm-java/llvm-java/Makefile.common.in
> 
> have line:
> include $(LLVM_OBJ_ROOT)/Makefile.common
> 
> that have line:
> include $(LLVM_OBJ_ROOT)/Makefile.config
> 
> (also $(LLVM_OBJ_ROOT)/Makefile.config used in llvm-test/Makefile.config.in)

This is all quite normal. Note that llvm-test is a little bit weird
because it does not use $(LLVM_OBJ_ROOT)/Makefile.rules, it has its own
Makefile.rules

> and
> 
> llvm/Makefile.config.in have lines:
> 
> INSTALL_SH := $(LLVM_SRC_ROOT)/autoconf/install-sh
> MKDIR      := $(LLVM_SRC_ROOT)/autoconf/mkinstalldirs
> 
> But all this projects (LLVM, Stacker, sample, llvm-java) have
> autoconf/install-sh and autoconf/mkinstalldirs in own sources.

Which they probably shouldn't have. I'd vote for removing these files
from the projects.

> I think at building, for example, llvm-java use
> llvm-java/autoconf/install-sh is more correct (synchronized version with
> other autoconf files and configure in project sources)

I think that it just leads to confusion. LLVM should provide the core
set of tools (mklib, install-sh, mkinstalldirs, etc.) needed by the
makefile system (since LLVM owns the makefile system). LLVM projects
that want to use this system should use its facilities and not override
them. If someone doesn't want to do that, then it shouldn't be regarded
as an LLVM project (in the makefile sense). 

> Is patch replacing
> 
> INSTALL_SH := $(LLVM_SRC_ROOT)/autoconf/install-sh
> MKDIR      := $(LLVM_SRC_ROOT)/autoconf/mkinstalldirs
> 
> by
> 
> INSTALL_SH := $(PROJ_SRC_ROOT)/autoconf/install-sh
> MKDIR      := $(PROJ_SRC_ROOT)/autoconf/mkinstalldirs
> 
> acceptable?

Its acceptable but I don't think its what we ultimately want to do. I'd
rather everyone use a consistent version of install-sh and mkinstalldirs
(the ones provided by llvm/autoconf) rather than every project rolling
their own.

> LLVM (including Stacker, sample), llvm-java build and installed with patch 
> and without problems.
> llvm-test have same install-sh and mkinstalldirs files as Stacker.

Sure, my argument isn't current correctness, its future correctness.
What happens when we update the LLVM tools in the future and they are no
longer compatible with the ones in the projects? The answer is that the
projects break. If we make the projects use the new tools (as currently
done with LLVM makefiles), we limit the number of things that have to
change and ensure that we don't break the projects after changes.

On a larger scale, I have toyed with the idea of making the LLVM
Makefile system just a separate public domain software project that
anyone can use. But, not sure how everyone would feel about that.

Reid.
-------------- 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/20050214/69d11e1e/attachment.sig>