r213010 - Define ENABLE_CLANG_ARCMT in the legacy build system too

[Nico Weber]

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote:

>
> On 15/07/2014 05:07, Nico Weber wrote:
>
>  On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com <mailto:
>> alp at nuanti.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Author: alp
>>     Date: Mon Jul 14 18:15:48 2014
>>     New Revision: 213010
>>
>>     URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=213010&view=rev
>>     Log:
>>     Define ENABLE_CLANG_ARCMT in the legacy build system too
>>
>>
>> As far as I know, make is just as supported as cmake, no?
>>
>
> Not really. it hasn't seen any of the feature work CMake has for at least
> a year. You only need to look at SVN logs to see all the hard work and
> hours spent on the CMake setup to make it outclass the other setup.
>

Or to see that the CMake build is maintenance for some reason ;-)


>
> Platform support is limited compared to CMake, likewise cross-compilation
> has been left behind thanks to the remarkable CMake sub-invocation work. No
> compilation database generation, meaning a poor experience for anyone
> trying to use tooling on the codebase. Broken dependency scanning, you have
> to "touch" files or risk getting miscompiles. And there are many Windows
> developers contributing these days -- their enhancements basically only
> ever get added to CMake while Makefiles are left with minimal build fixes.
>
> Then there's bit rot. Various clang tests aren't supported with the
> 'makefiles' build -- they're simply not run -- the set of installed headers
> isn't necessarily canonical with makefiles either. Whenever I've pinged
> that makefiles need to track some change or other, nobody's been too
> interested in following up. So users really aren't getting the "full LLVM
> experience" with it at this point, the 'makefiles' bots aren't getting full
> coverage etc.
>
> As far as I can tell it would take a large effort to get the traditional
> build system on par with CMake at this point and nobody's puting in the
> time to actually do that. While supported, the old system definitely meets
> the definition of "legacy". Only commits could have changed that, not any
> amount of hand waving or arguing that it's still the default in "buildit"
> :-)
>

Sounds like you prefer the cmake build, but there wasn't some thread about
this that I missed. So please just say "in make" instead of "legacy build
system" (it's more concise, too!)


>
>
>
>
>
>
>>     Modified:
>>         cfe/trunk/tools/libclang/Makefile
>>
>>     Modified: cfe/trunk/tools/libclang/Makefile
>>     URL:
>>     http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/tools/
>> libclang/Makefile?rev=213010&r1=213009&r2=213010&view=diff
>>     ============================================================
>> ==================
>>     --- cfe/trunk/tools/libclang/Makefile (original)
>>     +++ cfe/trunk/tools/libclang/Makefile Mon Jul 14 18:15:48 2014
>>     @@ -37,6 +37,10 @@ ifeq ($(HOST_OS), $(filter $(HOST_OS), L
>>              LLVMLibsOptions += -Wl,-soname,lib$(LIBRARYNAME)$(SHLIBEXT)
>>      endif
>>
>>     +ifeq ($(ENABLE_CLANG_ARCMT),1)
>>     +  CXX.Flags += -DCLANG_ENABLE_ARCMT
>>     +endif
>>     +
>>      ##===-------------------------------------------------------
>> ---------------===##
>>      # FIXME: This is copied from the 'lto' makefile.  Should we share
>>     this?
>>      ##===-------------------------------------------------------
>> ---------------===##
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     cfe-commits mailing list
>>     cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu>
>>     http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>>
>>
>>
> --
> http://www.nuanti.com
> the browser experts
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20140715/401c6306/attachment.html>