Alkis Evlogimenos wrote: [snip]> >>Is anything with "Boost" in name will be rejected right away? > > > Absolutely not! We were using one of the boost libraries before and we > replaced it because it was easy to do and it removed one external dependency > for us, not because it had the "Boost" in name :-) >Another consideration is that we try to limit the number of external tools needed to build LLVM. One difficulty with using a non-make build system is that users would need to download another build tool before building LLVM, and for some, that is too much work. Either that, or we have to include the tool with the LLVM distribution and build it with gmake. So whatever benefits we get from using another build system have to outweigh the inconvenience of an additional external dependency. -- John T. -- ********************************************************************* * John T. Criswell Email: criswell at uiuc.edu * * Research Programmer * * University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign * * * * "It's today!" said Piglet. "My favorite day," said Pooh. * *********************************************************************
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, John Criswell wrote:> Alkis Evlogimenos wrote: > [snip] > > > >>Is anything with "Boost" in name will be rejected right away? > > > > > > Absolutely not! We were using one of the boost libraries before and we > > replaced it because it was easy to do and it removed one external dependency > > for us, not because it had the "Boost" in name :-) > > > > Another consideration is that we try to limit the number of external > tools needed to build LLVM. One difficulty with using a non-make build > system is that users would need to download another build tool before > building LLVM, and for some, that is too much work.I agree with John, but assuming that boost.build was small enough to include with the distro, I think that it might be a big win. Just being able to support win32 and unix targets with a single build would be a VERY nice thing... -Chris -- http://llvm.org/ http://nondot.org/sabre/
On Friday 22 October 2004 09:21, Chris Lattner wrote:> > Another consideration is that we try to limit the number of external > > tools needed to build LLVM. One difficulty with using a non-make build > > system is that users would need to download another build tool before > > building LLVM, and for some, that is too much work. > > I agree with John, but assuming that boost.build was small enough to > include with the distro, I think that it might be a big win. Just being > able to support win32 and unix targets with a single build would be a VERY > nice thing...Ok, then again, I'll try to finish my attempt. If the results are good we can talk about handling the dependency. - Volodya