[LLVMdev] Deprecating autoconf/make?

[Nadav Rotem]

Paul, you can also just not test autoconf.  Why does it matter to you if the autoconf files are there or not ?

On May 22, 2013, at 8:30 PM, "Redmond, Paul" <paul.redmond at intel.com> wrote:

> Yes please.
> 
> On the practical side, our internal CI does cmake/autoconf x debug/release
> x gcc/clang (on linux). Cutting out autoconf reduces the number of
> combinations per build from 8 to 4. This probably doesn't matter to most
> people but it would be great for us.
> 
> paul
> 
> On 2013-05-22 7:14 PM, "Eric Christopher" <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> I fear starting another centi-thread on this but I'll give it a shot.
>> 
>> We're currently supporting two build systems which is definitely one
>> more than we (or I) want to support.
>> 
>> I don't know of any support in autoconf past the
>> --host/--build/--target case that's not supported in cmake. I'll send
>> out an assertion here that this support isn't necessary and any system
>> that needs it can instead move to:
>> 
>> build native clang
>> build next clang with some target that supplies a sysroot and a
>> -target option to the native clang
>> 
>> Can anyone see good a reason not to move to cmake as our only build
>> configuration system and drop future support for autoconf + makefiles
>> now that 3.3 has branched?
>> 
>> -eric
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130522/9c3be19a/attachment.html>