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

[Brooks Davis]

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.

For most versions we're using autoconf because it lets us build clang
against an installed LLVM.  The autoconf build system almost supports this
(you need to symlink a couple installed files into the build tree), but
AFACT the cmake build system doesn't.

It would be really useful if I could build clang against an installed LLVM
and LLDB against an install clang and LLVM.

The reason is that I'd prefer not to require that users install clang
when they just want LLVM and right now the only alternative would be
to rebuild LLVM with clang and then toss the result.  The ability for
our package system to produce multiple packages from the same build is
coming soon, but I foresee a maintenance nightmare when I have to figure
out which bits should end up in which package given the way libraries
and executables come and go in LLVM.

-- Brooks
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141104/f2a95971/attachment.sig>