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

[Bob Wilson]

> On Oct 31, 2014, at 4:45 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com <mailto:bob.wilson at apple.com>> wrote:
> 
>> On Oct 31, 2014, at 4:19 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com <mailto:echristo at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri Oct 31 2014 at 3:11:22 PM Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net <mailto: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)

Answering that question is the first part of what needs to be done.

I’m pretty sure that cmake has nothing that is close to the equivalent of what is in make/platform/clang_darwin.mk, for example.

>  
> 
>> 
>> 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 <mailto:LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu>         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu <http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/>
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev <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/e214d9fa/attachment.html>