Vikram S. Adve wrote:> Another alternative may be to unify the LLVM-side information > (opt/debug options, tool names, directories, test scripts, etc.) so > that most tasks only require you to make changes in one place, and then > let the rest of the build system be separate for the two platforms.I think it's OK to have a seperate limited (only the core libraries) native build for Visual Studio, and use the Unix build system for all the more advanced tasks. It should be possible to build under Cygwin but using the MS command line tools. Windows users are generally fond of binary distributions anyway, so it doesn't really matter much if it's a bit involved to build everything from the sources. My port only includes the core llvm libraries, tablegen and the fibonacci example. None of the tools or compiler front ends have been built, just enough to generate code dynamically. I still had to use the gnuwin32 ports of sed, flex and bison to get it working, so it requires some external tools but nothing as big as the full cygwin32 install... Anyway, if anyone wants the VS project files just contact me. It's really a separate thing from the main project so I can see why you're reluctant to put it in the CVS. And, as said before, I think most windows users would prefer a binary distribution anyway so the ease of building the windows version from source is largely irrelevant. m.
On Nov 2, 2004, at 2:40 AM, Morten Ofstad wrote:> Vikram S. Adve wrote: >> Another alternative may be to unify the LLVM-side information >> (opt/debug options, tool names, directories, test scripts, etc.) so >> that most tasks only require you to make changes in one place, and >> then let the rest of the build system be separate for the two >> platforms. > > I think it's OK to have a seperate limited (only the core libraries) > native build for Visual Studio, and use the Unix build system for all > the more advanced tasks.I don't really know enough about VS builds to give an opinion on this, except to say that unifying the harder tasks will probably require significant changes to the common makefiles anyway. But the build system gurus should be the ones to decide this.> It should be possible to build under Cygwin but using the MS command > line tools. Windows users are generally fond of binary distributions > anyway, so it doesn't really matter much if it's a bit involved to > build everything from the sources. > > My port only includes the core llvm libraries, tablegen and the > fibonacci example. None of the tools or compiler front ends have been > built, just enough to generate code dynamically. I still had to use > the gnuwin32 ports of sed, flex and bison to get it working, so it > requires some external tools but nothing as big as the full cygwin32 > install... > > Anyway, if anyone wants the VS project files just contact me. It's > really a separate thing from the main project so I can see why you're > reluctant to put it in the CVS. And, as said before, I think most > windows users would prefer a binary distribution anyway so the ease of > building the windows version from source is largely irrelevant.Are you referring to compiler writers or compiler *users*? I can see binary distributions working for the latter but not the former. --Vikram http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/~vadve http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/
Vikram Adve wrote:>> Anyway, if anyone wants the VS project files just contact me. It's >> really a separate thing from the main project so I can see why you're >> reluctant to put it in the CVS. And, as said before, I think most >> windows users would prefer a binary distribution anyway so the ease of >> building the windows version from source is largely irrelevant. > > Are you referring to compiler writers or compiler *users*? I can see > binary distributions working for the latter but not the former.Well, actually I'm speaking mostly for myself ;-) I have a front end, I want to generate code, all I really need is a llvm.lib and the include files that go along with it... I imagine this is quite a common scenario, but I might be wrong. m.