On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote:> "Matthew O'Connor" <thegreendragon at gmail.com> writes: > > > I'm in the process of creating a new LLVM project based on the > instructions > > from http://llvm.org/docs/Projects.html. > > > > I have a bunch of questions: > > > > 1. What is the relationship between CMake and the configure + Makefile > > build systems for LLVM? If I intend to just use configure + Makefile, do > I > > need to worry about any of the CMake stuff? > > No, until you submit your project for incorporating into LLVM. At that > time, you can ask for help or create the CMake stuff by replicating what > similar parts of LLVM do (it's quite simple and repetitive.) > > If your project is not intended to be distributed with LLVM, you can > ignore CMake (*) > > I don't know the traditional build so I can't help you with the other > questions. > > * From time to time some LLVM developer proposes to ditch the > traditional build and use CMake only. It can actually happen at some > distant future. >This project will not be incorporated into LLVM. How realistic is the possibility of moving to CMake only? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130812/28c9b215/attachment.html>
On 12 Aug 2013, at 22:22, "Matthew O'Connor" <thegreendragon at gmail.com> wrote:> How realistic is the possibility of moving to CMake only?It's been discussed frequently over the past 18 months. Most things work better (or exclusively) with CMake. A few (important) things only work, or work better, with autoconf. Getting CMake up to the standard where it supports a superset of what autoconf supports is required for dropping autoconf, and no one has volunteered to do it (which is understandable: none of the people who use CMake have the use cases where autoconf is better - if they did, then they'd be using autoconf). David
On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:51 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:> Getting CMake up to the standard where it supports a superset of what autoconf supports is required for dropping autoconfIs there a list somewhere of what autoconf supports that CMake does not (and that people care about)? It could be that people simply don't know what's missing since, as you point out, those using CMake don't need those features. -- Stephen Checkoway
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Matthew O'Connor <thegreendragon at gmail.com> wrote:> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: >> >> "Matthew O'Connor" <thegreendragon at gmail.com> writes: >> >> > I'm in the process of creating a new LLVM project based on the >> > instructions >> > from http://llvm.org/docs/Projects.html. >> > >> > I have a bunch of questions: >> > >> > 1. What is the relationship between CMake and the configure + Makefile >> > build systems for LLVM? If I intend to just use configure + Makefile, do >> > I >> > need to worry about any of the CMake stuff? >> >> No, until you submit your project for incorporating into LLVM. At that >> time, you can ask for help or create the CMake stuff by replicating what >> similar parts of LLVM do (it's quite simple and repetitive.) >> >> If your project is not intended to be distributed with LLVM, you can >> ignore CMake (*) >> >> I don't know the traditional build so I can't help you with the other >> questions. >> >> * From time to time some LLVM developer proposes to ditch the >> traditional build and use CMake only. It can actually happen at some >> distant future. > > > This project will not be incorporated into LLVM. >Then which build system likely doesn't matter for you?> How realistic is the possibility of moving to CMake only? >Right now? Not particularly though things could change. The email thread referenced later in this thread sums up the reasons, etc. -eric
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>wrote:> Then which build system likely doesn't matter for you? >I'd like to take advantage of the build work that LLVM has done so that we don't have to spend as much time maintaining our build when we can just mimic LLVM's + we'd get the build support for how tools, libraries, includes, and tests are built. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130902/ae630d3e/attachment.html>