[LLVMdev] [RFC] Raise minimum required CMake version to 3.0

Hal Finkel hfinkel at anl.gov
Wed Mar 11 09:28:31 PDT 2015

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org>
> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>
> Cc: "LLVM Dev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "jroelofs" <jonathan at codesourcery.com>, "Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es>,
> "David Chisnall" <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk>, "chandlerc" <chandlerc at gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 11:25:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [RFC] Raise minimum required CMake version to 3.0
> On 11 March 2015 at 16:17, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
> > Why? CMake itself already has a bootstrap procedure and associated
> > scripts? We'd just defer to those as appropriate. The added
> > complexity is not trivial, but need not be large, and most
> > importantly, is borne by us, not all other users, packagers,
> > systems administrators, etc. Plus, having done so, we'll be in
> > control of what features are available to us, which will provide
> > an offsetting increase in our productivity. Regarding the other
> > dependencies you mentioned, they're mostly providing standardized
> > interfaces (libc, C++11, etc.), except for Python. But Python has
> > lots of optional external dependencies (ncurses, etc.) and would
> > not be a good candidate for shipping inline, plus it's large.
> > CMake's external dependencies are very minimal, and it's not
> > particularly large, making it a much better candidate for
> > bundling.
> Ok, I'm out of arguments for this one, but I still don't think we
> should. :) If everyone else feels strongly about this route, I don't
> mind.

To be clear, I don't feel strongly about it either. But it seems silly that we spend so much time arguing about CMake version dependencies and have never even discussed bundling.


> cheers,
> --renato

Hal Finkel
Assistant Computational Scientist
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list