On Jun 20, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com> 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120621/55d360e9/attachment.html>
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Charles Davis <cdavis at mymail.mines.edu>wrote:> > On Jun 20, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com> 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 > cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120621/b01c89bc/attachment.html>
Le 21 juin 2012 à 11:34, Manuel Klimek a écrit :> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Charles Davis <cdavis at mymail.mines.edu> wrote: > > On Jun 20, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120621/78f24b29/attachment.html>