llvm dev - May 2009 - [LLVMdev] [PATCH] llvm-config: add svn revision to --version

Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at googlemail.com> writes:
> In the current version of my patch the revision is only updated on a  
> re-configure/CMake. On a second thought that is quite stupid. But I'm  
> not sure what's the best way to fix this. I guess we need to add a  
> target which is always run to llvm-config's Makefile ...
This is easy: see the logic for regenerating llvm-config when the file
that contains the library dependencies changes.

Why do you use `svn info' and not `svnversion'?

And this brings another question: how do you deal with modified working
copies?

-- 
Óscar Fuentes
Desarrollo de Software

Óscar Fuentes wrote:
> Why do you use `svn info' and not `svnversion'?
bad habit. I'm not very familiar with svnversion and its output.
> And this brings another question: how do you deal with modified  
> working
> copies?
We could add a M or "dirty" to the revision number. But I don't
know
how this would affect things like "if (revision >= 12345)".
> This is easy: see the logic for regenerating llvm-config when the file
> that contains the library dependencies changes.
hmm, sounds reasonable since it's in the same Makefile. But I probably  
won't have time to look into this until thursday. Damn exams. If  
anyone likes to volunteer: just do it ;)

Óscar Fuentes wrote:
> Why do you use `svn info' and not `svnversion'?
He probably copied this from LDC.

We used to use `svnversion` for LDC, but I changed it to `svn info` because it 
was noticeably faster[1]. This may be less of an issue for LLVM where builds 
take more time anyway, decreasing the relative impact.
> And this brings another question: how do you deal with modified working
> copies?
If you use svnversion it will append an 'M' to the revision number; see 
`svnversion --help`.


[1]: IIRC svnversion took several times longer than the rest of an incremental 
build if little had changed.

Benjamin Kramer wrote:
> Óscar Fuentes wrote:
>> And this brings another question: how do you deal with modified  
>> working
>> copies?
> 
> We could add a M or "dirty" to the revision number. But I
don't know
> how this would affect things like "if (revision >= 12345)".
It should be easy enough to sed out.