llvm dev - May 2016 - [cfe-dev] Fwd: Raising CMake minimum version to 3.4.3

As one of the OS' without current CMake support, I'm closely watching
this discussion.  We currently have LLVM 3.4.2 hosted on OpenVMS Itanium (as a
host only, x86 target) using configure/make with little hassle.  We plan to port
CMake to OpenVMS, but that has been trickier than you'd think (others have
tried, I haven't found anybody who has done it).  Looks like I'll want
to visit the cmake-developers list to as we get farther along.

The "lets update every year just because" does have ripple effects for
us non-traditional platforms.

John

On 2 May 2016 at 18:48, John Reagan via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> As one of the OS' without current CMake support, I'm closely
watching this discussion.  We currently have LLVM 3.4.2 hosted on OpenVMS
Itanium (as a host only, x86 target) using configure/make with little hassle. 
We plan to port CMake to OpenVMS, but that has been trickier than you'd
think (others have tried, I haven't found anybody who has done it).  Looks
like I'll want to visit the cmake-developers list to as we get farther
along.
>
> The "lets update every year just because" does have ripple
effects for us non-traditional platforms.
Thank you John, with some concrete arguments to my earlier attempt to
hold the horses.

As far as ARM is concerned, it's probably fine to upgrade (we've done
most of the work last week), but there are platforms that make ARM
testing look easy. :)

I'm adding some MIPS, PPC and release folks to make sure there's
nothing else we're missing.

cheers,
--renato

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Renato Golin [mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org]
> Sent: 02 May 2016 20:01
> To: John Reagan
> Cc: LLVM Dev; llvm-dev-request at lists.llvm.org; Daniel Sanders; Tom
Stellard;
> Bill Seurer; Hans Wennborg
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Fwd: Raising CMake minimum version to
> 3.4.3
> 
> On 2 May 2016 at 18:48, John Reagan via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > As one of the OS' without current CMake support, I'm closely
watching this
> discussion.  We currently have LLVM 3.4.2 hosted on OpenVMS Itanium (as a
> host only, x86 target) using configure/make with little hassle.  We plan to
> port CMake to OpenVMS, but that has been trickier than you'd think
(others
> have tried, I haven't found anybody who has done it).  Looks like
I'll want to
> visit the cmake-developers list to as we get farther along.
> >
> > The "lets update every year just because" does have ripple
effects for us
> non-traditional platforms.
> 
> Thank you John, with some concrete arguments to my earlier attempt to
> hold the horses.
> 
> As far as ARM is concerned, it's probably fine to upgrade (we've
done
> most of the work last week), but there are platforms that make ARM
> testing look easy. :)
> 
> I'm adding some MIPS, PPC and release folks to make sure there's
> nothing else we're missing.
> 
> cheers,
> --renato
I'm not aware of any problems with this for MIPS. The buildbots I admin
already use backported versions of cmake and ninja and it's not much more of
a burden to have additional versions installed to non-standard prefixes.
I'll find out whether that's ok for the MIPS buildbot that I don't
admin.

It sounds like your problem is with having cmake working *at all*, not
which version is required...So I'm not sure how requiring an upgrade every
year could make that any worse.

If anything, I'd expect you to need a newer version in order to get porting
changes.

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:48 PM, John Reagan via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> As one of the OS' without current CMake support, I'm closely
watching this
> discussion.  We currently have LLVM 3.4.2 hosted on OpenVMS Itanium (as a
> host only, x86 target) using configure/make with little hassle.  We plan to
> port CMake to OpenVMS, but that has been trickier than you'd think
(others
> have tried, I haven't found anybody who has done it).  Looks like
I'll want
> to visit the cmake-developers list to as we get farther along.
>
> The "lets update every year just because" does have ripple
effects for us
> non-traditional platforms.
>
> John
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160503/f19b5fc6/attachment.html>

It depends on the extent of our changes and the extent of the yearly differences
in CMake.   Some might merge easily, some might require re-engineering if the
underlying code has major changes.  Having a “fetch me a shrubbery” exercise
once a year and hope we aren’t surprised is just something I’d rather not have
to do.  We already have to worry about any out-of-tree merges into newer LLVMs. 
At some point as we get farther along, I’ll come back here and see what sort of
stuff we can check into the tree.  For example, getting our own triple into the
tree would be a good start.  However, I suspect we’re over a year away from any
of those discussions.

 

Of course the real solution would be to work with the CMake folks and
provide/support some OpenVMS support or at least follow THEIR development
discussions.  Just more work for my small team.

 

 

 

From: James Y Knight [mailto:jyknight at google.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 9:56 AM
To: John Reagan
Cc: llvm-dev; llvm-dev-request at lists.llvm.org
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Fwd: Raising CMake minimum version to 3.4.3

 

It sounds like your problem is with having cmake working at all, not which
version is required...So I'm not sure how requiring an upgrade every year
could make that any worse.

 

If anything, I'd expect you to need a newer version in order to get porting
changes.

 

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:48 PM, John Reagan via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:

As one of the OS' without current CMake support, I'm closely watching
this discussion.  We currently have LLVM 3.4.2 hosted on OpenVMS Itanium (as a
host only, x86 target) using configure/make with little hassle.  We plan to port
CMake to OpenVMS, but that has been trickier than you'd think (others have
tried, I haven't found anybody who has done it).  Looks like I'll want
to visit the cmake-developers list to as we get farther along.

The "lets update every year just because" does have ripple effects for
us non-traditional platforms.

John



_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160503/ee9500dc/attachment.html>

I'm not sure if they are doing an x86 to IA64 cross compile, but in
any event I'm going to guess they may need an ancient version to avoid
any C++11 dependencies. In terms of IA64 compilers you have afaik 3
choices HP compiler, Open64 and Intel? (Does gcc still support it and
how up-to-date or EOL is the Intel compiler IA64 support?)

I really hope nobody decides not to move to a more recent version of
cmake because of IA-64.

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 9:55 PM, James Y Knight via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> It sounds like your problem is with having cmake working at all, not which
> version is required...So I'm not sure how requiring an upgrade every
year
> could make that any worse.
>
> If anything, I'd expect you to need a newer version in order to get
porting
> changes.
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:48 PM, John Reagan via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> As one of the OS' without current CMake support, I'm closely
watching this
>> discussion.  We currently have LLVM 3.4.2 hosted on OpenVMS Itanium (as
a
>> host only, x86 target) using configure/make with little hassle.  We
plan to
>> port CMake to OpenVMS, but that has been trickier than you'd think
(others
>> have tried, I haven't found anybody who has done it).  Looks like
I'll want
>> to visit the cmake-developers list to as we get farther along.
>>
>> The "lets update every year just because" does have ripple
effects for us
>> non-traditional platforms.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>