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

[Óscar Fuentes]

David Röthlisberger <david at rothlis.net>
writes:

> On 21 Jun 2012, at 01:19, Chandler Carruth wrote:
>> 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 far I have assumed that "use cases that autoconf+make can't support"
> is referring to Windows support. (I am not a Windows user myself.)

CMake was introduced for supporting Visual Studio, because autoconf is
useless for that toolset and the hand-made VS project files that were in
place at the time were inconvenient for several reasons.

> But the following two statements left me wondering: Are people actually
> using LLVM's CMake build system on Windows? Or are they using the
> autoconf system with something like Cygwin / MinGW?
>
>> CMake is not even capable of [...] setting up project files to build
>> LLVM as a DLL so they can build a compiler atop it
> -- Mason Wheeler, On 27 Jun 2012, at 13:29

See my reply to that assertion on my other message.

>> CMake generates gigantic project files for IDEs like Visual Studio and
>> Xcode, which causes those IDEs to behavior very poorly, with long
>> project load times and sluggish overall performance. It's a significant
>> productivity problem.
> -- Douglas Gregor, On 26 Jun 2012, at 17:42
> (on thread "CMake Question: Do we need to support stand-alone builds?")

I don't know if Doug measured the impact on Visual Studio performance
specifically caused by CMake, compared to non-CMake project
files. AFAIK, CMake is the only existing option for working with Visual
Studio, so I have no idea of what's the point of Doug here.