r213010 - Define ENABLE_CLANG_ARCMT in the legacy build system too
Jonathan Roelofs
jonathan at codesourcery.com
Tue Jul 15 16:38:12 PDT 2014
On 7/15/14, 3:22 PM, Nico Weber wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com
> <mailto:alp at nuanti.com>> wrote:
>
>
> On 16/07/2014 00:38, Nico Weber wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com
> <mailto:alp at nuanti.com> <mailto:alp at nuanti.com <mailto: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>
> <mailto:alp at nuanti.com <mailto:alp at nuanti.com>>
> <mailto:alp at nuanti.com <mailto:alp at nuanti.com>
>
> <mailto: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
> <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,
>
>
> No, I mean it really isn't that well supported.
>
>
> There's a buildbot that uses it, and people fix it if it breaks. (See e.g. this
> change.)
>
> (Note that I'm not particularly attached to the make build – if the llvm project
> decides to drop make and only keep cmake around, I wouldn't argue against that.
> But that hasn't happened yet.)
ISTR hearing discussion about there being difficulty getting CMake to use the
just-built-clang to build compiler_rt. Until that's resolved, that kind of makes
CMake dead in the water for cross builds...
Jon
>
> 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!)
>
>
> "in make"? That's a new one :-)
>
>
> Maybe "with make"? "for make"? I don't speak English, but there's probably some
> verbal construct to express the sentiment I'm going for :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
> <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>
> <mailto:cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.__edu <mailto:cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu>>
> <mailto:cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.__edu
> <mailto:cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu> <mailto:cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.__edu
> <mailto:cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu>>>
>
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/__mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
> <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits>
>
>
>
> -- http://www.nuanti.com
> the browser experts
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.nuanti.com
> the browser experts
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>
--
Jon Roelofs
jonathan at codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded
More information about the cfe-commits
mailing list