On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 08:15 -0500, Andrew Lenharth wrote:> -enable-targets=x86,alpha,sparcv9 > -link-targets=alpha,host > > Valid options for both are: > the names of the targets > host > allAs others have agreed, this is a much better approach than the one I was thinking of. Its harder to parse in the configure script, but I can probably find a way to do it.> > where all is the default for both itemsThere has been some debate about the default value. I tend to agree with Chris on this. The default should be "all" so that everything gets tested by default. More sophisticated users can limit the targets that are built by merely typing -enable-targets=host on the configure line; not a big deal in my books. One other problem with making the default build only one or some of the targets is that it will (currently) cause the dejagnu tests to fail because llc won't know about certain targets that are in the test suite. Rei.d -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20050422/4d4880c2/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20050422/4d4880c2/attachment.sig>
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 08:54:07AM -0700, Reid Spencer wrote:> There has been some debate about the default value. I tend to agree > with Chris on this. The default should be "all" so that everything > gets tested by default. More sophisticated users can limit the targets > that are built by merely typing -enable-targets=host on the configure > line; not a big deal in my books.I would claim that from a user's perspective, default should be a compiler that generates code for the host platform, and nothing else. As we gather more and more backends, the "default" compilation will take longer and longer. A developer who wishes to make sure none of his changes break other targets and the nightly tester should run with `--enable-targets=all', but it doesn't make sense (to me) to make it the default.> One other problem with making the default build only one or some of > the targets is that it will (currently) cause the dejagnu tests to > fail because llc won't know about certain targets that are in the test > suite.That will have to be changed regardless of what setting is chosen for the --enable-targets default, because if a user compiles only a small set of targets, it doesn't make sense for the test suite to report a lot of errors for targets the user isn't even remotely interested in. -- Misha Brukman :: http://misha.brukman.net :: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 11:39 -0500, Misha Brukman wrote:> On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 08:54:07AM -0700, Reid Spencer wrote: > > There has been some debate about the default value. I tend to agree > > with Chris on this. The default should be "all" so that everything > > gets tested by default. More sophisticated users can limit the targets > > that are built by merely typing -enable-targets=host on the configure > > line; not a big deal in my books. > > I would claim that from a user's perspective, default should be a > compiler that generates code for the host platform, and nothing else. > As we gather more and more backends, the "default" compilation will take > longer and longer. > > A developer who wishes to make sure none of his changes break other > targets and the nightly tester should run with `--enable-targets=all', > but it doesn't make sense (to me) to make it the default. >Okay, we need to get this resolved. So far we have two camps: (a) those that want the default to be "all" and (b) those that want the default to be "host-only". This is easy enough to change in the configure script; we just need to make a decision. So far we have: (a) - Reid, Chris, Andrew Lenharth (b) - Misha, Vikram, Al Stone Since we're split down the middle (including the Oversight committee), I'm not sure which way to go. Anyone want to change their vote? Any other voters? Any other way to resolve this? Reid -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20050422/506eaee7/attachment.sig>