llvm dev - Mar 2015 - [LLVMdev] [RFC] Raise minimum required CMake version to 3.0

On 3/10/15 3:53 PM, Renato Golin wrote:
> On 10 March 2015 at 21:30, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>
wrote:
>> In the absence of specific features which would make our use of CMake
>> significantly better, I'm inclined to stick roughly to the version
of CMake
>> in the latest LTS release of ubuntu (I don't know the stable
releases of
>> debian well enough to cite it, but likely the same applies).
>
> 2.8.12.2 seems to be the common minimum version.
>
> Another thing to consider is the impact of CMake changes on buildbots.
> It may not be possible to migrate all buildbots to newer versions, for
> instance, Ubuntu is still stuck with 2.8.12.2 I think, but Debian
> Jesse is already on 3.0.2 and Arch Linux on 3.1.3.
Renato, what do you mean by "stuck with" here? Do you mean this is the
version that comes pre-installed, or is this the latest version of CMake 
that will build on those platforms? If the latter, that's a significant 
concern.


Jon
>
> The "advanced" features I want from CMake are:
>   * use pool = console (available in 3.0) to get rid of our ugly hack
> due to short timeouts
>   * specify -DCMAKE_NINJA_LINK_POOL=2 so we can build on
> multi-core/low-mem environments (or distcc).
>
> I don't think the second is even on the drawing board, though I
> remember having suggested it a few years back.
>
> None of them would make the life of a new developer easier, though... :)
>
> cheers,
> --renato
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
-- 
Jon Roelofs
jonathan at codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded

On 10 Mar 2015 22:12, "Jonathan Roelofs" <jroelofs.lists at
gmail.com> wrote:
> Renato, what do you mean by "stuck with" here? Do you mean this
is the
version that comes pre-installed, or is this the latest version of CMake
that will build on those platforms? If the latter, that's a significant
concern.

Pre-installed, or at all installable via packages. I don't think requiring
a new developer to build CMake before even checking out LLVM is wise.

Cheers,
Renato
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150310/cec2ae0c/attachment.html>

> Pre-installed, or at all installable via packages. I don't think
requiring a
> new developer to build CMake before even checking out LLVM is wise.
Why? We require recent compilers and installing a new cmake is easier
(way easier if from source) than a new gcc.

We already require it of every developer using windows or os X. By the
same argument we should be providing xcode and msvc projects :-)

Cheers,
Rafael