[LLVMdev] make fails to detect changes in case srcdir != objdir
edwintorok at gmail.com
Tue Jan 5 12:49:34 PST 2010
On 2010-01-05 22:21, David Greene wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 January 2010 13:33, Gregory Petrosyan wrote:
>>>>> A non-build after reconfigure is not really a problem. If nothing in
>>>>> the configuration has changed configure is smart enough not to update
>>>>> anything so make doesn't see any changes.
>>>> Yes, but in my case support for new targets should be built in.
>>> What do you mean?
>> I've done these:
>> 1) configure --enable-targets=x86
>> 2) make
>> 3) configure --enable-targets=all
>> 4) make
>> and after it I still did not had e.g. C backend.
> Ah. I actually don't know what configure does in that case. I suppose
> it depends on what .in files actually use the target list. This could be
> a real problem, I just don't know enough about the build system to be sure.
>>>> It is entirely possible that I've screwed something up, although I've
>>>> tried to follow LLVM docs as closely as possible. LLVM build system is
>>>> really not the nicest part of LLVM :-)
>>> That's true, but that's autoconf's fault, not LLVM's. :)
>> And what was the reason for picking autoconf?
> Don't ask me, it's not what I would have done. :)
> But to be fair, at the time autoconf was really the only game in town.
> Even now, only CMake really competes in this space.
> Then again, neither one satisfies Joel Test #2:
> I've wondered for a long time why software systems don't build a build system
> around a tool that's actually designed for it. Like make. In fact I wondered
> so much that I went and did it. Parallel configure/build/test is a really
> nifty thing. It's fun seeing regression tests running before the software
> build is complete. :)
Slightly offtopic, I noticed this project which does something very
similar to what you describe:
I don't know what its current state is, but is something worth keeping
an eye on IMHO.
More information about the llvm-dev