[LLVMdev] RFC: Timeline for deprecating the autoconf build system?

[Dimitry Andric]

On 03 Nov 2014, at 13:28, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> On 3 Nov 2014, at 12:17, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de> wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 04:48:58PM +0000, David Chisnall wrote:
>>> On 2 Nov 2014, at 14:17, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Requiring cmake for NetBSD is not acceptable as it is almost as heavy as
>>>> a C++ compiler itself. That said, I don't really care about the
>>>> Makefiles, just about configure and the associated loggic to craete
>>>> Config.h and friends. I would expect FreeBSD to have similar concerns.
>>> 
>>> For the FreeBSD base system, we use a bmake-based build system for LLVM,
>>> but that is based on the Makefiles generated by CMake.  I believe that
>>> we're now using CMake for the version of LLVM in ports.
>> 
>> The primary question is how do you create Config.h and friends,
>> especially the tools version during early release build.
> 
> We keep the version generated by CMake in the source tree for the version in base.  For the version in ports, CMake generates it when it builds.

Actually, the llvm/clang config.h (and other .def) files in FreeBSD are generated by autoconf.  For the rest we indeed use bmake, but this infrastructure is mostly cobbled together manually.  I only use the autoconf build output to determine which libraries are required by each llvm/clang tool, and in which order they are linked.

-Dimitry