[LLVMdev] Is there room for another build system?

Makarov, Dmitri
2008-07-30T18:35:09Z

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