[LLVMdev] RFC: Timeline for deprecating the autoconf build system?

Bob Wilson
2014-10-31T23:31:47Z

> On Oct 31, 2014, at 4:19 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri Oct 31 2014 at 3:11:22 PM Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net
<mailto:tom at stellard.net>> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to propose deprecating the autoconf build system at some
> point in the future.  Maintaining two build systems is a hassle not
> only for this project, but also for other projects that use LLVM
> and have to deal with the slight differences in output between the two
> build systems.
>
> It seems like most people are using CMake at this point, so my questions
> to the community are:
>
> - Is there any technical reason why the remaining autoconf users can't
switch
>   to CMake?
>
>
> I think Bob was the lead on keeping the autoconf system last year when this
came up, there is a PR somewhere in the system about the blocking things that
need to work in cmake to get it to happen. I don't know where we are on that
list or what features people still need.

I’ve come around to the point of accepting the inevitability of moving to cmake,
but I think there’s quite a bit of work to be done to get everything to work.
The compiler-rt build in particular is problematic.

>
> Personally I still use the autoconf system, but am willing to remove it if
we can get to a single system, but all of the requirements need to be handled
first.
>
> -eric
>
> For example, I personally use automake, and the only reason I don't
> use CMake is because it doesn't produce a single shared object
> (e.g. libLLVM-3.6.0svn.so <http://libllvm-3.6.0svn.so/>).
>
> - What is a reasonable timeframe to allow the remaining autoconf users
>   a chance to migrate to CMake?

I don’t know how to answer that. Someone will need to do the work to first
identify all the problems and then to get them fixed.

Converting everything to cmake will take quite a lot of work. In comparison, the
minor hassle of keeping the makefiles working for a bit longer seems pretty
insignificant.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141031/0158e582/attachment.html>