[LLVMdev] Is there room for another build system?

[Kenneth Boyd]

Jonathan Brumley wrote:
>
> 2 more roadblocks for Visual Studio users are the inability to compile 
> gcc and the inability to compile and run the test suite.  I would not 
> want to submit a change unless I could still compile/run gcc and pass 
> the test suite.  (Testing before submission is the way we do it where 
> I come from - I am assuming it's the same here).
>
> On a related note, has anyone gotten the LLVM test suite working on 
> MinGW?   I am in the process of trying to get LLVM working on my 
> Windows box.  I expect I can get the test suite working on Cygwin - 
> but I'm not sure about MinGW. 
The LLVM test suite requires expect as a dependency of DejaGNU.  The 
stock source of expect requires a *NIX fork, so it's relatively 
difficult to build under MinGW even though Tk/Tcl is easy to build under 
MinGW.  (I'm not aware of a precompiled MinGW binary for expect, 
although it might be in one of the more obscure packages).  I'd be 
interested in a successful build (with patches) for expect myself.

I've been thinking of constructing a mirror test suite coordinated using 
shell scripts (bash) to replace DejaGNU.  (This is for maximal 
portability.  For Windows, batch files are another option; however, they 
have some limitations relative to shell scripts.)

This is rather solidly in the "feasibility study/vaporware" stage for 
LLVM, although I've had moderate success testing the ideas with batch 
files on an internal project.

Kenneth