llvm dev - Jun 2012 - [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] is configure+make dead yet?

Le 21 juin 2012 à 11:34, Manuel Klimek a écrit :
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Charles Davis <cdavis at
mymail.mines.edu> wrote:
> 
> On Jun 20, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at
google.com> wrote:
>> Is there anybody who is certain that our autoconf dependency needs to
stay around? Are there developers stuck on systems that don't have a recent
enough cmake in their most recent release, or maybe are using some features from
configure+make that the cmake build system doesn't implement?
>> 
>> If nobody pipes up, I might actually try actually removing it!
>> 
>> There are definitely missing features in cmake. I'm actually
working on adding one of them: support for compiler-rt. There are likely some
others.
>> 
>> That said, I actually agree -- I think that cmake, while ugly, can be
made to support all of our use cases. There are some use cases that
autoconf+make can't support, so I'd rather we just pick cmake and bang
on it until it works the way we want.
> Now hold on there. I thought Daniel was supposed to be working on a new
build system, based almost entirely in Python, specifically because he thought
CMake was, uh... inadequate (to say the least). I've CC'd him in the
hopes of getting his opinion.
> 
> I'd be interested what about CMake is inadequate. The way CMake is used
in llvm seems somewhat suboptimal, but I don't see how doing the same thing
in python would be better ...
> 
> (not saying that cmake is perfect)
It never was about writing a build system in python to replace existing one, it
was about unifying the way (libraries) dependencies are expressed in LLVM by
cmake and configure/make.

-- Jean-Daniel




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120621/78f24b29/attachment.html>

Hi

Speaking about a good existing build system in python, there is waf :
http://code.google.com/p/waf/
It is in my opinion far more better than cmake on any point (performance,
flexibility, easy to use, ...) ...

2012/6/21 Jean-Daniel Dupas <devlists at shadowlab.org>
>
> Le 21 juin 2012 à 11:34, Manuel Klimek a écrit :
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Charles Davis <cdavis at
mymail.mines.edu>wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 20, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at
google.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Is there anybody who is certain that our autoconf dependency needs
to
>>> stay around? Are there developers stuck on systems that don't
have a recent
>>> enough cmake in their most recent release, or maybe are using some
features
>>> from configure+make that the cmake build system doesn't
implement?
>>>
>>> If nobody pipes up, I might actually try actually removing it!
>>>
>>
>> There are definitely missing features in cmake. I'm actually
working on
>> adding one of them: support for compiler-rt. There are likely some
others.
>>
>> That said, I actually agree -- I think that cmake, while ugly, can be
>> made to support all of our use cases. There are some use cases that
>> autoconf+make can't support, so I'd rather we just pick cmake
and bang on
>> it until it works the way we want.
>>
>> Now hold on there. I thought Daniel was supposed to be working on a new
>> build system, based almost entirely in Python, specifically because he
>> thought CMake was, uh... inadequate (to say the least). I've
CC'd him in
>> the hopes of getting his opinion.
>>
>
> I'd be interested what about CMake is inadequate. The way CMake is used
in
> llvm seems somewhat suboptimal, but I don't see how doing the same
thing in
> python would be better ...
>
> (not saying that cmake is perfect)
>
>
> It never was about writing a build system in python to replace existing
> one, it was about unifying the way (libraries) dependencies are expressed
> in LLVM by cmake and configure/make.
>
> -- Jean-Daniel
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120621/f8c6bb52/attachment.html>

On Jun 21, 2012, at 3:43 AM, Christophe Duvernois <christophe.duvernois at
gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi 
> 
> Speaking about a good existing build system in python, there is waf :
http://code.google.com/p/waf/
> It is in my opinion far more better than cmake on any point (performance,
flexibility, easy to use, ...) …
Please don't bring up yet-another-build-system. The only build systems that
are relevant to this discussion are CMake and autoconf+make, i.e., those that
are already supported by LLVM/Clang and in active use by a significant portion
of the LLVM/Clang community.

	- Doug
> 2012/6/21 Jean-Daniel Dupas <devlists at shadowlab.org>
> 
> Le 21 juin 2012 à 11:34, Manuel Klimek a écrit :
> 
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Charles Davis <cdavis at
mymail.mines.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> On Jun 20, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at
google.com> wrote:
>>> Is there anybody who is certain that our autoconf dependency needs
to stay around? Are there developers stuck on systems that don't have a
recent enough cmake in their most recent release, or maybe are using some
features from configure+make that the cmake build system doesn't implement?
>>> 
>>> If nobody pipes up, I might actually try actually removing it!
>>> 
>>> There are definitely missing features in cmake. I'm actually
working on adding one of them: support for compiler-rt. There are likely some
others.
>>> 
>>> That said, I actually agree -- I think that cmake, while ugly, can
be made to support all of our use cases. There are some use cases that
autoconf+make can't support, so I'd rather we just pick cmake and bang
on it until it works the way we want.
>> Now hold on there. I thought Daniel was supposed to be working on a new
build system, based almost entirely in Python, specifically because he thought
CMake was, uh... inadequate (to say the least). I've CC'd him in the
hopes of getting his opinion.
>> 
>> I'd be interested what about CMake is inadequate. The way CMake is
used in llvm seems somewhat suboptimal, but I don't see how doing the same
thing in python would be better ...
>> 
>> (not saying that cmake is perfect)
> 
> It never was about writing a build system in python to replace existing
one, it was about unifying the way (libraries) dependencies are expressed in
LLVM by cmake and configure/make.
> 
> -- Jean-Daniel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120621/75a325f1/attachment.html>

21.06.2012, 14:43, "Christophe Duvernois" <christophe.duvernois at
gmail.com>:
> Hi
>
> Speaking about a good existing build system in python, there is waf :
http://code.google.com/p/waf/
> It is in my opinion far more better than cmake on any point (performance,
flexibility, easy to use, ...) ...
I propose premake [1]. It also has nice performance, flexibility, and ease of
use,, but does not require Python
and can produce machine-independent Makefiles. It also support generation of
native projects for
Visual Studio and Xcode (as compared to CMake which inserts calls to itself
everywhere).

[1]  http://industriousone.com/premake

-- 
Regards,
Konstantin