[LLVMdev] Deprecating autoconf/make?

Redmond, Paul paul.redmond at intel.com
Wed May 22 21:39:17 PDT 2013

Paul, you can also just not test autoconf.  Why does it matter to you if the autoconf files are there or not ?

We want to make sure that any code we upstream is well tested. This includes building with both cmake and autoconf to ensure we don't break one build system or the other. That's the same reason the system builds with both gcc and clang. Most people here use cmake so our CI checks autoconf builds for them—that's the theory anyway :)


On May 22, 2013, at 8:30 PM, "Redmond, Paul" <paul.redmond at intel.com<mailto:paul.redmond at intel.com>> wrote:

Yes please.

On the practical side, our internal CI does cmake/autoconf x debug/release
x gcc/clang (on linux). Cutting out autoconf reduces the number of
combinations per build from 8 to 4. This probably doesn't matter to most
people but it would be great for us.


On 2013-05-22 7:14 PM, "Eric Christopher" <echristo at gmail.com<mailto:echristo at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi All,

I fear starting another centi-thread on this but I'll give it a shot.

We're currently supporting two build systems which is definitely one
more than we (or I) want to support.

I don't know of any support in autoconf past the
--host/--build/--target case that's not supported in cmake. I'll send
out an assertion here that this support isn't necessary and any system
that needs it can instead move to:

build native clang
build next clang with some target that supplies a sysroot and a
-target option to the native clang

Can anyone see good a reason not to move to cmake as our only build
configuration system and drop future support for autoconf + makefiles
now that 3.3 has branched?

LLVM Developers mailing list
LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu<mailto:LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu>         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu

LLVM Developers mailing list
LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu<mailto:LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu>         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu<http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list