llvm dev - Nov 2012 - [LLVMdev] [PATCH] .gitignore: add rules for a clean worktree

> I was under the impression that in-source-tree builds were an unsupported
> configuration. It's certainly strongly discouraged. I'm not fond of
the
> idea of making it easier, especially when there's a maintenance cost to
> doing so.
>
Strongly discouraged, and yes, this.

-eric
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20121113/d11ae4c9/attachment.html>

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>
wrote:
>> I was under the impression that in-source-tree builds were an
unsupported
>> configuration. It's certainly strongly discouraged. I'm not
fond of the idea
>> of making it easier, especially when there's a maintenance cost to
doing so.
>
> Strongly discouraged, and yes, this.
FWIW, if in-tree builds work for CMake, I consider that a bug and will fix it.

On 11/13/2012 2:15 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at
gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I was under the impression that in-source-tree builds were an
unsupported
>>> configuration. It's certainly strongly discouraged. I'm not
fond of the idea
>>> of making it easier, especially when there's a maintenance cost
to doing so.
>>
>> Strongly discouraged, and yes, this.
>
> FWIW, if in-tree builds work for CMake, I consider that a bug and will fix
it.
By making sure that it no longer works for CMake? haha
On a more serious note, what would be the reason to support in-tree builds?

-Krzysztof

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, 
hosted by The Linux Foundation

Chandler Carruth wrote:
> FWIW, if in-tree builds work for CMake, I consider that a bug and will fix
it.
How else am I supposed to build LLVM?  I ran the toplevel configure
and make script.

Ram