[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] is configure+make dead yet?

[Chandler Carruth]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com> wrote:

>
> On Jun 20, 2012, at 5:13 PM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com> wrote:
>
> Is there anybody who is certain that our autoconf dependency needs to stay
> around? Are there developers stuck on systems that don't have a recent
> enough cmake in their most recent release, or maybe are using some features
> from configure+make that the cmake build system doesn't implement?
>
> If nobody pipes up, I might actually try actually removing it!
>
>
> I think this is premature, although I consider it a worthy goal. Right
> now, the only motivation we have for removing "configure+make" is that we
> don't like having two build systems, but that's not good enough.
>

Here here. Thanks for writing up this detailed and accurate response.


> Some things that CMake needs to do well for it to become the only way to
> build LLVM/Clang:
>   - Optionally build and install compiler-rt
>   - Optionally build and install libc++
>

FYI, I'm currently in-flight working on the first of these, and planning to
work on the second afterward.


>   - Ease-to-use cross-compilation support
>   - Documentation to make it easy to understand how to do the above
>   - LLDB?
>   - LLVM testsuite support
>

I think David might be interested in this. However, the way LNT is
structured, I don't think this is a requisite: it is now much more common
to build the testsuite independently of llvm/clang, and hand it a set of
pre-built binaries.

And some value-add that might make CMake motivating for others:
>   - Easy bootstrap
>   - Build packages/installers
>

A couple more:

- Support for ninja if you happen to have it (and no cost if you don't)
gives you faster rebuilds.
- Slightly better support for the new Tooling infrastructure.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120621/74ce2da6/attachment.html>