[llvm-commits] [llvm] r141977 - /llvm/trunk/utils/llvmbuild

[Daniel Dunbar]

Ok, keeping it in the tree is fine with me if generally useful.

It seems like the main focus is to build all the LLVM compilers, what
about llvm-build-all-compilers or something? Doesn't cover the test
side, but gets closer. Or maybe llvm-deep-check-compilers ?

 - Daniel

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 3:17 PM, David A. Greene <greened at obbligato.org> wrote:
> Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> writes:
>
>> This script appears to be pretty specific to your workflow. While it
>> looks cool, I'm not really sure it belongs where it is.
>
> I don't think it's specific to any particular workflow.  Of course I
> use it because I developed it but I think it will be useful to anyone.
>
>> I also want to take the llvm-build name, and I don't want people to be
>> confused by two similarly but completely unrelated things.
>
> I don't mind if you rename things.
>
>> Do you really feel like this script is something that belongs in the
>> tree? Does anyone else use it?
>
> I don't know if anyone else uses it, but others could benefit from it.
>
> The main reason I put it there was to create a standard way to build the
> entire LLVM ecosystem (llvm, clang, dragonegg and dragonegg-enabled gcc)
> in several different flavors (debug, release, etc.).  This is primarily
> for verifying the build and regression tests before checking something
> in.  I don't think there's any other tool in the repository that does
> this.  I find it very convenient to have a one-stop shop to verify
> everything.
>
> So it's really more than "llvmbuild."  It's more like "build and test
> llvm lots of ways before committing changes."  Unfortunately, I'm not
> clever enough to come up with a simple name that conveys that.  :)
>
>> Are you ok moving it aside and to a name that is more specific to what
>> it does, instead of a the very generic llvmbuild name?
>
> Yeah, I have no problem with that.  I would like to keep it in the
> repository for the reasons stated above.  Thanks for asking.
>
>                           -Dave
>