Jeff Cohen wrote:> On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 10:25:39 +0100 > "Henrik Bach" <henrik_bach_llvm at hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>I've come over an open source script which should be able to convert unix >>(gnu?) like makefiles to nmake. However, It possible needs some changes to >>work with the llvm makefile framework. > > > I'm very doubtful this utility is of any use. nmake is useless compared > to gnu make. I don't see how gnu makefiles can be converted to nmake > makefiles except in the most trivial of cases.Yeah, that would be my take too. I've tried this before and given up. The current makefile system HEAVILY depends on GNU Makef features (unabashedly) and there are many GNU functions that just have no equivlanet in nmake.> >>Until then, I strongly suggest a repository for the msvc project files until >>we'll come with a lasting solution. It is natural that we, msvc guys, should >>keep these files in shape. >> >>Henrik. > > > Like it or not, I suspect solution and projects files are the lasting > solution. Makefiles are not normally used in the Windows world, because > nmake is not usable for anything non-trivial. Microsoft doesn't make > nmake truly useful, because no one uses it enough to care. Heck, I > could never get nmake to work with the makefiles generated by Visual > Studio! Instead of fixing nmake, Microsoft simply dropped from VS the > option of generating makefiles.Right. This is why I suggested we just put the project files in a simple place that Windows folks can keep up to date and that won't get in the way of the Unix folks. So, where's the patch? Reid.
> Right. This is why I suggested we just put the project files in a simple > place that Windows folks can keep up to date and that won't get in the > way of the Unix folks.I have them in llvm/win32 ... There is another solution though, you could require cygwin to be installed and use the unix build system but with the VS command line tools. The 'check' target should be useful to windows developers also, but it can't be done easily with visual studio project files...> So, where's the patch?Where do I send it? m.
Morten Ofstad wrote: > I have them in llvm/win32 Okay, please send to llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> ... There is another solution though, you > could require cygwin to be installed and use the unix build system but > with the VS command line tools. The 'check' target should be useful to > windows developers also, but it can't be done easily with visual studio > project files...This can be done today, I just don't think anyone has changed it. Its definitely something we want to support. I know of at least one change to the makefiles needed to support this. When building an archive library, windows uses the .lib extension instead of .a. We need to support this but currently don't. There may be other things in the makefiles that we need to do to get this approach to work. Reid
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Morten Ofstad wrote:> > Right. This is why I suggested we just put the project files in a simple > > place that Windows folks can keep up to date and that won't get in the > > way of the Unix folks. > > I have them in llvm/win32 ... There is another solution though, youThat sounds good.> could require cygwin to be installed and use the unix build system but > with the VS command line tools. The 'check' target should be useful to > windows developers also, but it can't be done easily with visual studio > project files...Yeah, I think that's what reid was saying. In theory this shouldn't be too hard, but in practice, who knows. :)> > So, where's the patch? > > Where do I send it?For a patch of this size, please either send it directly to Reid or to the llvm-bugs list. Thanks a lot Morten! -Chris -- http://llvm.org/ http://nondot.org/sabre/