[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Upcoming Build System Changes
trapni at gentoo.org
Fri Oct 28 06:40:39 PDT 2011
I wouldn't say that. I know quite a few systems here around that even try to
avoid python where possible. but cmake however, as a build system, is
welcomed by all of us (working as a sysop in a unix environment).
I'd also (as a non-llvm-dev but llvm-userdev) vote for NOT reinventing the
wheel but to use the tool the fits you the best, personally that's even
cmake, too. it has a well list of great backing companies / projects and is
still improving well, e.g. Qt planned (I do not know how up-to-date this
info is) improve it in a way to make it more suitable for IDEs, however,
from the sysop point of view, it's much more a pleasure to work with cmake
than with autotools, and when you introduce (yet) another new build system,
it would be just a headache :)
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Csaba Raduly <rcsaba at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:34 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> > I have a very high level comment, and you may be able to directly shed
> > on it before I dig into a lot more detail.
> > Why not simply standardize on CMake?
> That would establish a hard dependency on CMake. Not every system has
> CMake whereas most systems do have Python by default (on the machines
> I use daily, Python has a 5-1 lead).
> See also David Chisnall's mail about Perl > Python.
> GCS a+ e++ d- C++ ULS$ L+$ !E- W++ P+++$ w++$ tv+ b++ DI D++ 5++
> The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
> Life is complex, with real and imaginary parts.
> "Ok, it boots. Which means it must be bug-free and perfect. " -- Linus
> "People disagree with me. I just ignore them." -- Linus Torvalds
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev