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

[David Blaikie]

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote:

>
> On Oct 31, 2014, at 4:19 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri Oct 31 2014 at 3:11:22 PM Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to propose deprecating the autoconf build system at some
>> point in the future.  Maintaining two build systems is a hassle not
>> only for this project, but also for other projects that use LLVM
>> and have to deal with the slight differences in output between the two
>> build systems.
>>
>> It seems like most people are using CMake at this point, so my questions
>> to the community are:
>>
>> - Is there any technical reason why the remaining autoconf users can't
>> switch
>>   to CMake?
>>
>>
> I think Bob was the lead on keeping the autoconf system last year when
> this came up, there is a PR somewhere in the system about the blocking
> things that need to work in cmake to get it to happen. I don't know where
> we are on that list or what features people still need.
>
>
> I’ve come around to the point of accepting the inevitability of moving to
> cmake, but I think there’s quite a bit of work to be done to get everything
> to work. The compiler-rt build in particular is problematic.
>

What're the particular problems there? I've been using compiler-rt/asan
built from cmake for a while now, but I don't know the details (perhaps
there are particular features, etc)


>
>
> Personally I still use the autoconf system, but am willing to remove it if
> we can get to a single system, but all of the requirements need to be
> handled first.
>
> -eric
>
>
>> For example, I personally use automake, and the only reason I don't
>> use CMake is because it doesn't produce a single shared object
>> (e.g. libLLVM-3.6.0svn.so <http://libllvm-3.6.0svn.so/>).
>>
>> - What is a reasonable timeframe to allow the remaining autoconf users
>>   a chance to migrate to CMake?
>
>
> I don’t know how to answer that. Someone will need to do the work to first
> identify all the problems and then to get them fixed.
>
> Converting everything to cmake will take quite a lot of work. In
> comparison, the minor hassle of keeping the makefiles working for a bit
> longer seems pretty insignificant.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141031/c9bd0add/attachment.html>