[PATCH] D14046: [test-suite] Introduce a new CMake+LIT based harness

[James Molloy via llvm-commits]

Hi Chris,

I agree with your logic, and will make the version change when I land it.

Cheers,

James

On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 at 16:58 Chris Bieneman via llvm-commits <
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> beanz accepted this revision.
> beanz added a comment.
> This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
>
> LGTM. One comment below, more for posterity than anything else.
>
>
> ================
> Comment at: CMakeLists.txt:2
> @@ +1,3 @@
> +cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 2.8.12.2)
> +
> +# The test-suite is designed to be built in release mode anyway and
> ----------------
> jmolloy wrote:
> > My unscientific straw poll of LLVM users inside ARM says that 2.8.12.2
> is still the minimum we can expect - Ubuntu 14.10 LTS still ships this, I'm
> afraid, and as it's the latest LTS I'm not sure it's old enough to
> deprecate.
> The minimum version is dictated per-project, there is no global
> expectation. There is more burden involved in raising a version, than
> creating a new project with a higher minimum requirement, which is why I
> asked that we consider moving this up (to avoid having to move it up later).
>
> We don't have any requirement or expectation that we will support the
> version of tools in an LTS Linux release. We have had this conversation
> numerous times, and it is not considered unreasonable that we might in the
> future request that Linux users behave like all the other users of LLVM and
> acquire their own copies of CMake (neither OS X nor Windows ship CMake or
> package managers). The reason LLVM and Clang haven't raised their minimum
> versions is that we haven't had compelling reasons to justify the change.
>
> I believe that starting a new build system free of version-based checks is
> compelling reason to start this new project with a higher minimum version.
> Ideally I would want this to require at least CMake 3.2 which has been out
> for 6 months or so. That said, my personal preference for trying to push
> forward our CMake version isn't motivation enough to argue about landing
> this patch.
>
>
> Repository:
>   rL LLVM
>
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D14046
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20151027/d63eed46/attachment.html>