[LLVMdev] Fw: include/Config/config.h discrepancies between CMake and autofoo builds

[Samuel Crow]

Whoops, phone rang and I forgot to cc to the list before I typed the message.


----- Forwarded Message ----
> From: Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com>
> To: Ruben Van Boxem <vanboxem.ruben at gmail.com>
> Sent: Wed, January 5, 2011 3:38:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] include/Config/config.h discrepancies between CMake and 
>autofoo builds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Ruben Van Boxem <vanboxem.ruben at gmail.com>
> >  To: Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es>
> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu
> > Sent: Wed,  January 5, 2011 3:10:29 PM
> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev]  include/Config/config.h discrepancies between CMake 
>and 
>
> >autofoo  builds
> > 
> > 2011/1/5 Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es>:
> > > Ruben Van  Boxem  <vanboxem.ruben at gmail.com>   writes:
> > >
> > 
> > I may be naive, but  shouldn't a  *standard* C library implementation
> > use *standard*   headers/function prototypes? I understand OSes like BSD
> > and Solaris  really  suck on this point (standards compliance), but I
> > would  think linux, Mac OS  and Windows at least adhere to a large
> >  denominator which would make these  checks kind of superfluous.  Heck,
> > all of Qt builds without any of these, and  it uses only a  platform
> > specific header with the necessary defines. I would  think  a library
> > like Qt touches most dark corners of all the platforms  it  supports?
> > (not trying to be a brute here, I'm just  frustrated  with
> > Windows+autotools... and all the projects  using  that).
> > 
> 
> 
> Hi Ruben,
> 
> CMake is inspired by  QMake which is what Qt builds all of its cross-platform 
> tools with. You  might try to find a better example.
> 
> --Sam Crow
> 
> 
> 
>