is configure+make dead yet?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
90 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

is configure+make dead yet?

Nick Lewycky-2
Is there anybody who is certain that our autoconf dependency needs to stay around? Are there developers stuck on systems that don't have a recent enough cmake in their most recent release, or maybe are using some features from configure+make that the cmake build system doesn't implement?

If nobody pipes up, I might actually try actually removing it!

Nick


_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [cfe-dev] is configure+make dead yet?

Chandler Carruth-2
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Nick Lewycky <[hidden email]> wrote:
Is there anybody who is certain that our autoconf dependency needs to stay around? Are there developers stuck on systems that don't have a recent enough cmake in their most recent release, or maybe are using some features from configure+make that the cmake build system doesn't implement?

If nobody pipes up, I might actually try actually removing it!

There are definitely missing features in cmake. I'm actually working on adding one of them: support for compiler-rt. There are likely some others.

That said, I actually agree -- I think that cmake, while ugly, can be made to support all of our use cases. There are some use cases that autoconf+make can't support, so I'd rather we just pick cmake and bang on it until it works the way we want.

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [cfe-dev] is configure+make dead yet?

Ashok Nalkund
On 6/20/2012 5:19 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Nick Lewycky <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Is there anybody who is certain that our autoconf dependency needs
>     to stay around? Are there developers stuck on systems that don't
>     have a recent enough cmake in their most recent release, or maybe
>     are using some features from configure+make that the cmake build
>     system doesn't implement?
>
>     If nobody pipes up, I might actually try actually removing it!
>
>
> There are definitely missing features in cmake. I'm actually working on
> adding one of them: support for compiler-rt. There are likely some others.
>
> That said, I actually agree -- I think that cmake, while ugly, can be
> made to support all of our use cases. There are some use cases that
> autoconf+make can't support, so I'd rather we just pick cmake and bang
> on it until it works the way we want.
>

Please dont remove it yet. I'm relying on configure's '--enable-libcpp'
flag to compile LLVM/clang using clang++ and libc++. I couldnt find an
equivalent using cmake. Please see my mails titled "Compiling libc++
from within llvm (3.1)" and "Build llvm/clang with cmake vs configure
produces different set of artifacts".

If you have any suggestions, I'm most willing to try it out. I dont know
enough about CMake but I tried to go through the cmake build files.

Thanks,
ashok

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: is configure+make dead yet?

Tobias Grosser-5
In reply to this post by Nick Lewycky-2
On 06/21/2012 02:13 AM, Nick Lewycky wrote:
> Is there anybody who is certain that our autoconf dependency needs to
> stay around? Are there developers stuck on systems that don't have a
> recent enough cmake in their most recent release, or maybe are using
> some features from configure+make that the cmake build system doesn't
> implement?
>
> If nobody pipes up, I might actually try actually removing it!

Hi Nick,

I don't see a reason to keep it, but I would like you to check that all
buildbots are moved over to cmake. The Polly buildbots are, but I have
doubts about the other buildbots.

Tobi
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [cfe-dev] is configure+make dead yet?

Chandler Carruth-2
In reply to this post by Nick Lewycky-2
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Nick Lewycky <[hidden email]> wrote:
Is there anybody who is certain that our autoconf dependency needs to stay around? Are there developers stuck on systems that don't have a recent enough cmake in their most recent release, or maybe are using some features from configure+make that the cmake build system doesn't implement?

If nobody pipes up, I might actually try actually removing it!

FWIW, I'm also under the impression that Apple's internal release process depends on configure+make as well. 

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [cfe-dev] is configure+make dead yet?

Ashok Nalkund
On 6/20/2012 11:00 PM, "C. Bergström" wrote:

> On 06/21/12 12:47 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Nick Lewycky <[hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>>      Is there anybody who is certain that our autoconf dependency needs
>>      to stay around? Are there developers stuck on systems that don't
>>      have a recent enough cmake in their most recent release, or maybe
>>      are using some features from configure+make that the cmake build
>>      system doesn't implement?
>>
>>      If nobody pipes up, I might actually try actually removing it!
>>
>>
>> FWIW, I'm also under the impression that Apple's internal release
>> process depends on configure+make as well.
> clang/llvm are advertised as being independent of Apple.  There's a ton
> of companies using the project, but we should let them speak-up if they
> *really* need it to stay around.
>
> +1 for removing autoconf dep

I posted earlier but seems it didnt catch anybody's attention.

Please dont remove it yet. I'm relying on configure's '--enable-libcpp'
flag to compile LLVM/clang using clang++ and libc++. I couldnt find an
equivalent using cmake. Please see my mails titled "Compiling libc++
from within llvm (3.1)" and "Build llvm/clang with cmake vs configure
produces different set of artifacts".

If you have any suggestions, I'm most willing to try it out. I dont know
enough about CMake but I tried to go through the cmake build files.

Thanks,
ashok
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: is configure+make dead yet?

Duncan Sands
In reply to this post by Nick Lewycky-2
Hi Nick,

> Is there anybody who is certain that our autoconf dependency needs to stay
> around? Are there developers stuck on systems that don't have a recent enough
> cmake in their most recent release, or maybe are using some features from
> configure+make that the cmake build system doesn't implement?
>
> If nobody pipes up, I might actually try actually removing it!

most of my builders are using configure + make, so will need to be converted.
Fortunately, all the build machines seem to have cmake installed.

Ciao, Duncan.
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: is configure+make dead yet?

Anton Korobeynikov-2
In reply to this post by Nick Lewycky-2
Hi Nick,

> If nobody pipes up, I might actually try actually removing it!
I think cmake system lacks many features of autoconf system. In
addition to already said thing, I think the major missing thing is
cross-compilation support.
You can easy cross-compile llvm/clang via standard
--build/--host/--target flags. If you will show that this will be
possible by cmake - then everything will be fine :)

--
With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [cfe-dev] is configure+make dead yet?

Ashok Nalkund
In reply to this post by Ashok Nalkund
On 6/20/2012 11:55 PM, Ashok Nalkund wrote:

> On 6/20/2012 11:00 PM, "C. Bergström" wrote:
>> On 06/21/12 12:47 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Nick Lewycky <[hidden email]
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>       Is there anybody who is certain that our autoconf dependency needs
>>>       to stay around? Are there developers stuck on systems that don't
>>>       have a recent enough cmake in their most recent release, or maybe
>>>       are using some features from configure+make that the cmake build
>>>       system doesn't implement?
>>>
>>>       If nobody pipes up, I might actually try actually removing it!
>>>
>>>
>>> FWIW, I'm also under the impression that Apple's internal release
>>> process depends on configure+make as well.
>> clang/llvm are advertised as being independent of Apple.  There's a ton
>> of companies using the project, but we should let them speak-up if they
>> *really* need it to stay around.
>>
>> +1 for removing autoconf dep
>
> I posted earlier but seems it didnt catch anybody's attention.
>
> Please dont remove it yet. I'm relying on configure's '--enable-libcpp'
> flag to compile LLVM/clang using clang++ and libc++. I couldnt find an
> equivalent using cmake. Please see my mails titled "Compiling libc++
> from within llvm (3.1)" and "Build llvm/clang with cmake vs configure
> produces different set of artifacts".
>
> If you have any suggestions, I'm most willing to try it out. I dont know
> enough about CMake but I tried to go through the cmake build files.
>
> Thanks,
> ashok

I managed to use:

CC=clang CXX=clang++ CXXFLAGS="-stdlib=libc++ -I <libcxxdir..." cmake...

  to cause it to use clang++ with libc++ to build LLVM/clang.

But now I run into bug 10646
(http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=10646). Can somebody comment on
when the patch will be available on trunk. I can apply the patch to my
local copy but would like to avoid local changes.

tia,
ashok
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [cfe-dev] is configure+make dead yet?

Michael Spencer-4
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Ashok Nalkund <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 6/20/2012 11:55 PM, Ashok Nalkund wrote:
>> On 6/20/2012 11:00 PM, "C. Bergström" wrote:
>>> On 06/21/12 12:47 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Nick Lewycky <[hidden email]
>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>       Is there anybody who is certain that our autoconf dependency needs
>>>>       to stay around? Are there developers stuck on systems that don't
>>>>       have a recent enough cmake in their most recent release, or maybe
>>>>       are using some features from configure+make that the cmake build
>>>>       system doesn't implement?
>>>>
>>>>       If nobody pipes up, I might actually try actually removing it!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, I'm also under the impression that Apple's internal release
>>>> process depends on configure+make as well.
>>> clang/llvm are advertised as being independent of Apple.  There's a ton
>>> of companies using the project, but we should let them speak-up if they
>>> *really* need it to stay around.
>>>
>>> +1 for removing autoconf dep
>>
>> I posted earlier but seems it didnt catch anybody's attention.
>>
>> Please dont remove it yet. I'm relying on configure's '--enable-libcpp'
>> flag to compile LLVM/clang using clang++ and libc++. I couldnt find an
>> equivalent using cmake. Please see my mails titled "Compiling libc++
>> from within llvm (3.1)" and "Build llvm/clang with cmake vs configure
>> produces different set of artifacts".
>>
>> If you have any suggestions, I'm most willing to try it out. I dont know
>> enough about CMake but I tried to go through the cmake build files.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> ashok
>
> I managed to use:
>
> CC=clang CXX=clang++ CXXFLAGS="-stdlib=libc++ -I <libcxxdir..." cmake...
>
>  to cause it to use clang++ with libc++ to build LLVM/clang.
>
> But now I run into bug 10646
> (http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=10646). Can somebody comment on
> when the patch will be available on trunk. I can apply the patch to my
> local copy but would like to avoid local changes.
>
> tia,
> ashok

I fixed that bug a while ago. Also I build LLVM and Clang with libc++
daily using CMake and it works just fine.

- Michael Spencer

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [cfe-dev] is configure+make dead yet?

Ashok Nalkund
On 6/21/2012 1:10 AM, Michael Spencer wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Ashok Nalkund <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I managed to use:
>>
>> CC=clang CXX=clang++ CXXFLAGS="-stdlib=libc++ -I <libcxxdir..." cmake...
>>
>>   to cause it to use clang++ with libc++ to build LLVM/clang.
>>
>> But now I run into bug 10646
>> (http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=10646). Can somebody comment on
>> when the patch will be available on trunk. I can apply the patch to my
>> local copy but would like to avoid local changes.
>>
>> tia,
>> ashok
>
> I fixed that bug a while ago. Also I build LLVM and Clang with libc++
> daily using CMake and it works just fine.
>
> - Michael Spencer
>

Can you post your build commands? I'm on Linux (Ubuntu).

tia
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [cfe-dev] is configure+make dead yet?

Charles Davis-4
In reply to this post by Chandler Carruth-2

On Jun 20, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Nick Lewycky <[hidden email]> wrote:
Is there anybody who is certain that our autoconf dependency needs to stay around? Are there developers stuck on systems that don't have a recent enough cmake in their most recent release, or maybe are using some features from configure+make that the cmake build system doesn't implement?

If nobody pipes up, I might actually try actually removing it!

There are definitely missing features in cmake. I'm actually working on adding one of them: support for compiler-rt. There are likely some others.

That said, I actually agree -- I think that cmake, while ugly, can be made to support all of our use cases. There are some use cases that autoconf+make can't support, so I'd rather we just pick cmake and bang on it until it works the way we want.
Now hold on there. I thought Daniel was supposed to be working on a new build system, based almost entirely in Python, specifically because he thought CMake was, uh... inadequate (to say the least). I've CC'd him in the hopes of getting his opinion.

On the other hand, +1 for gutting autoconf. I hate it, and it needs to die.

Chip

P.S. -- Chandler, please increase the font size in your mail client. It's very small and hard to read.

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [cfe-dev] is configure+make dead yet?

Konstantin Tokarev
In reply to this post by Ashok Nalkund


21.06.2012, 11:50, "Ashok Nalkund" <[hidden email]>:

> On 6/20/2012 11:55 PM, Ashok Nalkund wrote:
>
>>  On 6/20/2012 11:00 PM, "C. Bergström" wrote:
>>>  On 06/21/12 12:47 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
>>>>  On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Nick Lewycky <[hidden email]
>>>>  <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>        Is there anybody who is certain that our autoconf dependency needs
>>>>        to stay around? Are there developers stuck on systems that don't
>>>>        have a recent enough cmake in their most recent release, or maybe
>>>>        are using some features from configure+make that the cmake build
>>>>        system doesn't implement?
>>>>
>>>>        If nobody pipes up, I might actually try actually removing it!
>>>>
>>>>  FWIW, I'm also under the impression that Apple's internal release
>>>>  process depends on configure+make as well.
>>>  clang/llvm are advertised as being independent of Apple.  There's a ton
>>>  of companies using the project, but we should let them speak-up if they
>>>  *really* need it to stay around.
>>>
>>>  +1 for removing autoconf dep
>>  I posted earlier but seems it didnt catch anybody's attention.
>>
>>  Please dont remove it yet. I'm relying on configure's '--enable-libcpp'
>>  flag to compile LLVM/clang using clang++ and libc++. I couldnt find an
>>  equivalent using cmake. Please see my mails titled "Compiling libc++
>>  from within llvm (3.1)" and "Build llvm/clang with cmake vs configure
>>  produces different set of artifacts".
>>
>>  If you have any suggestions, I'm most willing to try it out. I dont know
>>  enough about CMake but I tried to go through the cmake build files.
>>
>>  Thanks,
>>  ashok
>
> I managed to use:
>
> CC=clang CXX=clang++ CXXFLAGS="-stdlib=libc++ -I <libcxxdir..." cmake...

Why so complicated?
Use ccmake and don't suffer anymore!

--
Regards,
Konstantin
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [cfe-dev] is configure+make dead yet?

Manuel Klimek-2
In reply to this post by Charles Davis-4
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Charles Davis <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Jun 20, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Nick Lewycky <[hidden email]> wrote:
Is there anybody who is certain that our autoconf dependency needs to stay around? Are there developers stuck on systems that don't have a recent enough cmake in their most recent release, or maybe are using some features from configure+make that the cmake build system doesn't implement?

If nobody pipes up, I might actually try actually removing it!

There are definitely missing features in cmake. I'm actually working on adding one of them: support for compiler-rt. There are likely some others.

That said, I actually agree -- I think that cmake, while ugly, can be made to support all of our use cases. There are some use cases that autoconf+make can't support, so I'd rather we just pick cmake and bang on it until it works the way we want.
Now hold on there. I thought Daniel was supposed to be working on a new build system, based almost entirely in Python, specifically because he thought CMake was, uh... inadequate (to say the least). I've CC'd him in the hopes of getting his opinion.

I'd be interested what about CMake is inadequate. The way CMake is used in llvm seems somewhat suboptimal, but I don't see how doing the same thing in python would be better ...

(not saying that cmake is perfect)

Cheers,
/Manuel
 

On the other hand, +1 for gutting autoconf. I hate it, and it needs to die.

Chip

P.S. -- Chandler, please increase the font size in your mail client. It's very small and hard to read.

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev



_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [cfe-dev] is configure+make dead yet?

David Chisnall-2
In reply to this post by Konstantin Tokarev
On 21 Jun 2012, at 09:45, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:

> Use ccmake and don't suffer anymore!

Now there's a construct that I never expected to see anyone utter seriously...

David

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [cfe-dev] is configure+make dead yet?

Jean-Daniel Dupas-2
In reply to this post by Manuel Klimek-2

Le 21 juin 2012 à 11:34, Manuel Klimek a écrit :

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Charles Davis <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Jun 20, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Nick Lewycky <[hidden email]> wrote:
Is there anybody who is certain that our autoconf dependency needs to stay around? Are there developers stuck on systems that don't have a recent enough cmake in their most recent release, or maybe are using some features from configure+make that the cmake build system doesn't implement?

If nobody pipes up, I might actually try actually removing it!

There are definitely missing features in cmake. I'm actually working on adding one of them: support for compiler-rt. There are likely some others.

That said, I actually agree -- I think that cmake, while ugly, can be made to support all of our use cases. There are some use cases that autoconf+make can't support, so I'd rather we just pick cmake and bang on it until it works the way we want.
Now hold on there. I thought Daniel was supposed to be working on a new build system, based almost entirely in Python, specifically because he thought CMake was, uh... inadequate (to say the least). I've CC'd him in the hopes of getting his opinion.

I'd be interested what about CMake is inadequate. The way CMake is used in llvm seems somewhat suboptimal, but I don't see how doing the same thing in python would be better ...

(not saying that cmake is perfect)

It never was about writing a build system in python to replace existing one, it was about unifying the way (libraries) dependencies are expressed in LLVM by cmake and configure/make.

-- Jean-Daniel





_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [cfe-dev] is configure+make dead yet?

Christophe Duvernois
Hi

Speaking about a good existing build system in python, there is waf : http://code.google.com/p/waf/
It is in my opinion far more better than cmake on any point (performance, flexibility, easy to use, ...) ...

2012/6/21 Jean-Daniel Dupas <[hidden email]>

Le 21 juin 2012 à 11:34, Manuel Klimek a écrit :

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Charles Davis <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Jun 20, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Nick Lewycky <[hidden email]> wrote:
Is there anybody who is certain that our autoconf dependency needs to stay around? Are there developers stuck on systems that don't have a recent enough cmake in their most recent release, or maybe are using some features from configure+make that the cmake build system doesn't implement?

If nobody pipes up, I might actually try actually removing it!

There are definitely missing features in cmake. I'm actually working on adding one of them: support for compiler-rt. There are likely some others.

That said, I actually agree -- I think that cmake, while ugly, can be made to support all of our use cases. There are some use cases that autoconf+make can't support, so I'd rather we just pick cmake and bang on it until it works the way we want.
Now hold on there. I thought Daniel was supposed to be working on a new build system, based almost entirely in Python, specifically because he thought CMake was, uh... inadequate (to say the least). I've CC'd him in the hopes of getting his opinion.

I'd be interested what about CMake is inadequate. The way CMake is used in llvm seems somewhat suboptimal, but I don't see how doing the same thing in python would be better ...

(not saying that cmake is perfect)

It never was about writing a build system in python to replace existing one, it was about unifying the way (libraries) dependencies are expressed in LLVM by cmake and configure/make.

-- Jean-Daniel





_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev



_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: is configure+make dead yet?

Óscar Fuentes
In reply to this post by Anton Korobeynikov-2
Anton Korobeynikov <[hidden email]> writes:

> I think cmake system lacks many features of autoconf system. In
> addition to already said thing, I think the major missing thing is
> cross-compilation support.
> You can easy cross-compile llvm/clang via standard
> --build/--host/--target flags. If you will show that this will be
> possible by cmake - then everything will be fine :)

Anton, I've posted this information several times on this list, IIRC
some of them after you claimed that cmake can't cross-compile, so I hope
this is cleared once and for all:

http://llvm.org/docs/CMake.html#cross

About the "many features" that cmake lacks, can you provide a list,
please? (supposing those features actually are useful for LLVM
developers. I know that the configure+make build does things missing on
the cmake build, but the later does things missing on the former too.) I
asked for that list of missing features multiple times on this list, and
nobody ever came with anything.

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: is configure+make dead yet?

Joshua Cranmer 🐧
In reply to this post by Nick Lewycky-2
On 6/20/2012 8:13 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote:
Is there anybody who is certain that our autoconf dependency needs to stay around? Are there developers stuck on systems that don't have a recent enough cmake in their most recent release, or maybe are using some features from configure+make that the cmake build system doesn't implement?

Note that the LLVM documentation (e.g., <http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html>) treats the configure-and-make build system as canonical, and I recall when I first used the cmake build system, I was told that one thing I was trying to do was unsupported in the cmake build (I've forgotten what it was though).
-- 
Joshua Cranmer
News submodule owner
DXR coauthor

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [cfe-dev] is configure+make dead yet?

Albert Graef
In reply to this post by Chandler Carruth-2
On 06/21/2012 07:47 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> FWIW, I'm also under the impression that Apple's internal release
> process depends on configure+make as well.

As do the Debian/Ubuntu packaging scripts. I'm sure that they can be
changed to use the cmake build system instead, but someone will have to
do the work.

This issue comes up every once in a while. I'm sure that there are other
LLVM users who prefer autoconf over cmake and therefore appreciate that
LLVM still supports it. Of course, that's a matter of preference and
experience and I can understand that the LLVM developers have better
things to do than supporting two separate build systems. I just wished
that the favoured alternative wasn't cmake. ;-)

Albert

--
Dr. Albert Gr"af
Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany
Email:  [hidden email], [hidden email]
WWW:    http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
12345