Improving support for CMake-based applications

[Eric Christopher]

It might, I took a glance at them and didn't see any problems with
them. Do the ones before the Makefile patches depend on the Makefile
patches? Can they be committed separately?

-eric

On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote:
> These patches generally look good to me.  Thank you for the detailed
> commit messages.  I hope that we can work to get these integrated so
> that we can move on to Brad's follow-up patches on clang.  Would it
> help move things along if Brad uploaded his patches to Phabricator so
> that we can review and merge each patch independently?
>
> http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/
>
> Thanks,
> Greg
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Brad King <brad.king at kitware.com> wrote:
>> On 01/31/2014 06:24 PM, Eric Christopher wrote:
>>> Apologies but I've lost track of the situation. What's going on and
>>> needs changing on the Makefile side? I'm totally down with looking at
>>> and reviewing, just not sure where we are :)
>>
>> I posted a patch series here:
>>
>>  http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140120/202622.html
>>
>> to improve the "LLVMConfig.cmake" file provided to support applications
>> using "find_package(LLVM)" with CMake.  Part of the series includes
>> teaching the Makefile-based build system to generate and install the
>> files needed to do this.  Patches 0007 and 0008 in the above-linked
>> post make the needed changes to the Makefile build (the patches do
>> depend on preceding patches so cannot be tested in isolation).
>>
>> This is a step toward resolving PR9321:
>>
>>  http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=9321
>>
>> by eliminating some of the differences between the files installed
>> by the two build systems.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Brad
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> llvm-commits mailing list
>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits