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

> 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

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Rafael Espíndola <
rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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 :-)

FWIW, my stance is not that we can't do this, just that it (like requiring
a modern compiler) has a cost that we should consider carefully before we
impose it on folks.

When we updated the compilers, we aimed for ones that would be installed on
the new LTS ubuntu release at the time of the next release.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150310/53d9d591/attachment.html>

On 11 Mar 2015 00:17, "Rafael Espíndola" <rafael.espindola at
gmail.com> wrote:
> Why? We require recent compilers and installing a new cmake is easier
> (way easier if from source) than a new gcc.
We don't require users to compile their own gcc. Are you saying it's
impossible to get pre-built CMake 2.8.12 and gcc 4.7 on either Mac or
Windows?
> We already require it of every developer using windows or os X. By the
> same argument we should be providing xcode and msvc projects :-)
Why not? CMake can build eclipse files, and some projects do supply
code::blocks project files. If people feel inclined, I don't see a problem.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150311/e0a678ee/attachment.html>

On 11 Mar 2015 00:22, "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at
google.com> wrote:
> FWIW, my stance is not that we can't do this, just that it (like
requiring a modern compiler) has a cost that we should consider carefully
before we impose it on folks.

+1
> When we updated the compilers, we aimed for ones that would be installed
on the new LTS ubuntu release at the time of the next release.

There was a bit more than that, with Mac and windows folks agreeing to
other versions, but yes, gcc on Linux because it's the most relevant
platform for gnu tools.

CMake is far easier to deal than gcc, but win/Mac users already have to
download binaries, while Linux users install from package managers. It's
just the way it is and I wouldn't want to force any one out of their way
unless we had an extremely compelling reason to do so.

Cheers,
Renato
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150311/a25f4277/attachment.html>

> We don't require users to compile their own gcc. Are you saying
it's
> impossible to get pre-built CMake 2.8.12 and gcc 4.7 on either Mac or
> Windows?
And we wouldn't be requiring it for cmake. My point was that cmake is
always easier to install:

* From binaries: a bit easier, since they are provided in http://www.cmake.org/
* From source: way easier than gcc.

Gosh, from my experience *building* cmake is easier than *downloading*
llvm and clang in the right layout, so the extra cost is really small.

As for the advantages, this seems to make it easier to drop the
autoconf build, which would be a really big win for us.
>> We already require it of every developer using windows or os X. By the
>> same argument we should be providing xcode and msvc projects :-)
>
> Why not? CMake can build eclipse files, and some projects do supply
> code::blocks project files. If people feel inclined, I don't see a
problem.
Because it has a big cost for the people actually writing llvm in
exchange of an hypothetical advantage to an hypothetical user.

Cheers,
Rafael