[LLVMdev] RFC: Timeline for deprecating the autoconf build system?
Steven Stewart-Gallus
sstewartgallus00 at mylangara.bc.ca
Tue Nov 4 11:01:48 PST 2014
I am an actual end user of LLVM who builds it from source and not a
developer of it so I think I have an important perspective that is not
represented here. Also I am pretty sure the llvmdev mailing is heavily
biased and might not reach actual end users of LLVM. I use the
Autotools build system for a number of reasons. If compromises or
reasonable workarounds could be found I would be okay with the switch
to CMake.
- CMake is poorly documented and difficult to use as an end
user. There are a number of arcane switches and settings that are
hard to find and figure out what they do. Moreover, certain
important functionality is just plain lacking.
- I already have an Autotools configuration file that sets default
settings for the local installation prefix (to
"$HOME/root/usr/local") and the LDFLAGS (to
"-Wl,-rpath,${HOME}/root/usr/local/lib
-Wl,-rpath,${HOME}/root/usr/local/lib64"). I don't if it's possible
to set such defaults for CMake and even if it is the difficulty in
finding how to do so is a bad sign.
- In Autotols the installation directory is overridable at install
time so I can set the prefix variable to a different directory such
as "$HOME/root/usr/local/stow/llvm" and using GNU Stow have easy
package management and isolation between software. CMake does not
offer such a capability or is so poorly documentated that it is
impossible to find out how to do so.
Overall, CMake isn't a bad build system for actually building software
but simply lacks the appropriate polish and documentation that makes
it easy for end users to use.
Thank you,
Steven Stewart-Gallus
More information about the llvm-dev
mailing list