Stefanus Du Toit <sdt at rapidmind.com> writes: [snip]> We have considered contributing such a build system, and if we were to > do so would probably base it on SCons (http://www.scons.org/) because > we already use SCons extensively.At first, SCons is what I intended too. But then I read about the KDE experience and took the safe route :-) [snip]> Are you intending for your build system to support all the features of > the existing make-based build system, e.g. running the test suite, > supporting cross compilation, etc.?My initial plan was: if the LLVM devs are interested, go for the whole pie; if just VC++ people is interested, restrict to VC++. Now that Chris showed interest, I'll aim at fully replacing the current system. However, as I'm just learning CMake and the LLVM build system, things will come as my technical possibilities allows. Thanks for your feedback. -- Oscar
I too have done some work on an alternative build system for llvm. It is based on boost.build. Of course, it's quite a large project and I'm not ready to contribute the work yet. Ideally I was hoping to replace all of makefile functionality with jamfiles. Boost.build is attractive because support for new compilers/tools comes with new releases of boost.build and need not be added manually by llvm developers/users. Since you're working on a competing build system, I'm no longer sure I want to spend time developing my build system. It would help to know what are your estimates for the availability timeframe of your build system. Thanks, Dmitri -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Óscar Fuentes Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:18 AM To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Is there room for another build system? Stefanus Du Toit <sdt at rapidmind.com> writes: [snip]> We have considered contributing such a build system, and if we were to > do so would probably base it on SCons (http://www.scons.org/) because > we already use SCons extensively.At first, SCons is what I intended too. But then I read about the KDE experience and took the safe route :-) [snip]> Are you intending for your build system to support all the features of > the existing make-based build system, e.g. running the test suite, > supporting cross compilation, etc.?My initial plan was: if the LLVM devs are interested, go for the whole pie; if just VC++ people is interested, restrict to VC++. Now that Chris showed interest, I'll aim at fully replacing the current system. However, as I'm just learning CMake and the LLVM build system, things will come as my technical possibilities allows. Thanks for your feedback. -- Oscar _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
"Makarov, Dmitri" <Dmitri.Makarov at amd.com> writes:> I too have done some work on an alternative build system for llvm. It > is based on boost.build. Of course, it's quite a large project and > I'm not ready to contribute the work yet. Ideally I was hoping to > replace all of makefile functionality with jamfiles. Boost.build is > attractive because support for new compilers/tools comes with new > releases of boost.build and need not be added manually by llvm > developers/users.I tried boost.build on the past for other project and couldn't make head or tails of it. Even the abstraction of compiler options it does does not appeal too much to me. OTOH, can it replace autoconf? I don't want to bash boost.build, just saying that it is not for me (as a build system maintainer).> Since you're working on a competing build system, I'm no longer sure I > want to spend time developing my build system. It would help to know > what are your estimates for the availability timeframe of your build > system.Well, the basic VC++ support is practically done. I want to enhance it with llvm-config functionality. I hope to do this on a few days. I stimate just a few hours of real work. The only real slow-down I see is the long waits for every trial run on my old computer. -- Oscar
Makarov, Dmitri wrote:> I too have done some work on an alternative build system for llvm. It is based on boost.build. > Of course, it's quite a large project and I'm not ready to contribute the work yet. Ideally I was > hoping to replace all of makefile functionality with jamfiles. Boost.build is attractive because > support for new compilers/tools comes with new releases of boost.build and need not be added > manually by llvm developers/users.Chris and I have talked about Boost.Build-based solution some time ago, and I volunteered to work on it. Unfortunately, I did not have as much time recently as I would have hoped, but if you have some code already, I can just help with getting it into shape. (Note that I'm Boost.Build developer myself). - Volodya