[cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] is configure+make dead yet?

[Douglas Gregor]

On Jun 21, 2012, at 3:43 AM, Christophe Duvernois <christophe.duvernois at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi 
> 
> Speaking about a good existing build system in python, there is waf : http://code.google.com/p/waf/
> It is in my opinion far more better than cmake on any point (performance, flexibility, easy to use, ...) …

Please don't bring up yet-another-build-system. The only build systems that are relevant to this discussion are CMake and autoconf+make, i.e., those that are already supported by LLVM/Clang and in active use by a significant portion of the LLVM/Clang community.

	- Doug

> 2012/6/21 Jean-Daniel Dupas <devlists at shadowlab.org>
> 
> Le 21 juin 2012 à 11:34, Manuel Klimek a écrit :
> 
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Charles Davis <cdavis at mymail.mines.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> On Jun 20, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com> wrote:
>>> Is there anybody who is certain that our autoconf dependency needs to stay around? Are there developers stuck on systems that don't have a recent enough cmake in their most recent release, or maybe are using some features from configure+make that the cmake build system doesn't implement?
>>> 
>>> If nobody pipes up, I might actually try actually removing it!
>>> 
>>> There are definitely missing features in cmake. I'm actually working on adding one of them: support for compiler-rt. There are likely some others.
>>> 
>>> That said, I actually agree -- I think that cmake, while ugly, can be made to support all of our use cases. There are some use cases that autoconf+make can't support, so I'd rather we just pick cmake and bang on it until it works the way we want.
>> Now hold on there. I thought Daniel was supposed to be working on a new build system, based almost entirely in Python, specifically because he thought CMake was, uh... inadequate (to say the least). I've CC'd him in the hopes of getting his opinion.
>> 
>> I'd be interested what about CMake is inadequate. The way CMake is used in llvm seems somewhat suboptimal, but I don't see how doing the same thing in python would be better ...
>> 
>> (not saying that cmake is perfect)
> 
> It never was about writing a build system in python to replace existing one, it was about unifying the way (libraries) dependencies are expressed in LLVM by cmake and configure/make.
> 
> -- Jean-Daniel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20120621/75a325f1/attachment.html>