llvm dev - Jan 2011 - [LLVMdev] include/Config/config.h discrepancies between CMake and autofoo builds

Op 5 jan. 2011 19:33 schreef "Anton Korobeynikov" <anton at
korobeynikov.info>
het volgende:
>
> > contains most of them. If they're non-trivial (like the ones I
needed to
> > add for OSX functionality) that's a different story.
> FWIW the difference is even more significant on, e.g. mingw32 because
> process spawning is pretty much expensive and sometimes configure time
> dominates the compile time :)
And this is why I don't understand configure checks for windows...
There's
only one/two header/library sets... The Windows SDK and MinGW. This info
should be built in IMHO...

Ruben
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110105/a34f14ae/attachment.html>

Ruben Van Boxem <vanboxem.ruben at gmail.com> writes:
> And this is why I don't understand configure checks for windows...
There's
> only one/two header/library sets... The Windows SDK and MinGW. This info
> should be built in IMHO...
Although the panorama is not so diverse as the Unix world, there is
quite a bit of variation on Windows too. Apart from the
cygwin/mingw/vc++ distinction, there are multiple versions of their
respective C libraries, intrinsics and language features supported by
the compilers, etc. Plus some people may want to use third party
libraries for certain things.

Note: the platform tests makes no difference among the official Windows
SDK libraries and MinGW's Winapi. Maybe you are thinking on the MS C
runtime (that evolves with every VC++ compiler release) and the MinGW C
runtime (which wraps some version of the MS C runtime and adds stuff of
its own.)

2011/1/5 Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es>:
> Ruben Van Boxem <vanboxem.ruben at gmail.com> writes:
>
>> And this is why I don't understand configure checks for windows...
There's
>> only one/two header/library sets... The Windows SDK and MinGW. This
info
>> should be built in IMHO...
>
> Although the panorama is not so diverse as the Unix world, there is
> quite a bit of variation on Windows too. Apart from the
> cygwin/mingw/vc++ distinction, there are multiple versions of their
> respective C libraries, intrinsics and language features supported by
> the compilers, etc. Plus some people may want to use third party
> libraries for certain things.
>
> Note: the platform tests makes no difference among the official Windows
> SDK libraries and MinGW's Winapi. Maybe you are thinking on the MS C
> runtime (that evolves with every VC++ compiler release) and the MinGW C
> runtime (which wraps some version of the MS C runtime and adds stuff of
> its own.)
>
Yeah that's the two different ones I mean. Everything MS (intrinsics,
language features etc...) is purely version-bound, so I don't even get
why CMake insists on checking every known function prototype of for
example "recv" and for the presence of headers it (or the project
dev!) should know are not there.

As for 3rdparty libraries: provide an option like autotools (about the
only thing (sometimes) done right) "--with-3rdpartylibname=somePath".
Leave it to the user/builder to get their setup right and provide the
correct library (location)

Sorry for the somewhat off-topic ramble :s.

Ruben