[LLVMdev] Cutting down the number of platform checks

Eric Christopher echristo at gmail.com
Tue Jul 23 15:34:38 PDT 2013

Sure. Preapproved if you feel the need for autoconf. Let me know if
you need/want help regenerating.


On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote:
>> Yes. What you are seeing are the platform checks, where the build system
>> looks for the presence of functions, headers, etc and then generates a
>> configuration file with that information.
> I've been meaning to cut down on the number of these because they are super
> slow and wasteful.  Some of them are dead and can be removed without
> discussion.
> Some of them are used inconsistently, like HAVE_STRING_H.  Do we really
> support any platform that lacks a <string.h>?  All of Errno.cpp is in an
> ifdef for this macro, but I suspect we include string.h elsewhere
> unconditionally.
> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/lib/Support/Errno.cpp?revision=167191&view=markup
> Is everyone OK with eliminating checks for headers and symbols that we use
> unconditionally anyway?  (assert.h, mempcy, etc)
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list