[LLVMdev] Is there room for another build system?

[Óscar Fuentes]

"Makarov, Dmitri" <Dmitri.Makarov at amd.com> writes:

> I too have done some work on an alternative build system for llvm.  It
> is based on boost.build.  Of course, it's quite a large project and
> I'm not ready to contribute the work yet.  Ideally I was hoping to
> replace all of makefile functionality with jamfiles.  Boost.build is
> attractive because support for new compilers/tools comes with new
> releases of boost.build and need not be added manually by llvm
> developers/users.

I tried boost.build on the past for other project and couldn't make head
or tails of it. Even the abstraction of compiler options it does does
not appeal too much to me. OTOH, can it replace autoconf?

I don't want to bash boost.build, just saying that it is not for me (as
a build system maintainer).

> Since you're working on a competing build system, I'm no longer sure I
> want to spend time developing my build system. It would help to know
> what are your estimates for the availability timeframe of your build
> system.

Well, the basic VC++ support is practically done. I want to enhance it
with llvm-config functionality. I hope to do this on a few days. I
stimate just a few hours of real work. The only real slow-down I see is
the long waits for every trial run on my old computer.

-- 
Oscar