John Reagan via llvm-dev
2016-May-02 17:48 UTC
[llvm-dev] [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
Renato Golin via llvm-dev
2016-May-02 19:01 UTC
[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
Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev
2016-May-03 09:45 UTC
[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Fwd: Raising CMake minimum version to 3.4.3
> -----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, > --renatoI'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.
James Y Knight via llvm-dev
2016-May-03 13:55 UTC
[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/f19b5fc6/attachment.html>
John Reagan via llvm-dev
2016-May-03 15:11 UTC
[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Fwd: Raising CMake minimum version to 3.4.3
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>
C Bergström via llvm-dev
2016-May-03 15:12 UTC
[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Fwd: Raising CMake minimum version to 3.4.3
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 >
Seemingly Similar Threads
- [cfe-dev] Fwd: Raising CMake minimum version to 3.4.3
- Port to other Operating Systems
- [RFC] Deprecating autoconf: Let's do it!
- Port to other Operating Systems
- [RFC] Coding Standards: "prefer `int` for, regular arithmetic, use `unsigned` only for bitmask and when you, intend to rely on wrapping behavior."