Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "_dirs".
Did you mean:
dirs
2009 Jan 19
2
[LLVMdev] building clang when present
On Jan 19, 2009, at 11:55 AM, Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen wrote:
> In my humble opinion, using OPTIONAL_DIRS would be better and cleaner.
> It may require some changes to ‘Makefile.rules’ to work as
> intended, though. If there's interest in such a change, I can prepare
> a patch?
Are OPTIONAL_DIRS parallel? For some reason, I was assuming not.
2009 Jan 19
0
[LLVMdev] building clang when present
On 19 Jan 2009, at 21:16, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jan 19, 2009, at 11:55 AM, Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen wrote:
>> In my humble opinion, using OPTIONAL_DIRS would be better and
>> cleaner.
>> It may require some changes to ‘Makefile.rules’ to work as
>> intended, though. If there's interest in such a change, I can prepare
>> a patch?
>
> Are OPTIONAL_DIRS parallel? For some reason, I was assuming not.
Well, from my...
2016 Sep 01
2
change in CMake variable names breaks existing uses and does not conform to CMake conventions
Hi Chris and everyone else,
I just noticed that some of my builds broke due to commit 280013, as LLVM_INCLUDE_DIRS was renamed to LLVM_INCLUDE_DIR. In and of itself, not much of an issue as the fix is just to remove one character (in a couple of places). However, I would like to discuss if this rename is desirable at all. Sure, in-tree LLVM_INCLUDE_DIR is used everywhere, however not providing an ${NAME}_INCLUD...
2009 Jan 19
3
[LLVMdev] building clang when present
On Jan 19, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen wrote:
> On 19 Jan 2009, at 21:16, Mike Stump wrote:
>
>> On Jan 19, 2009, at 11:55 AM, Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen
>> wrote:
>>> In my humble opinion, using OPTIONAL_DIRS would be better and
>>> cleaner.
>>> It may require some changes to ‘Makefile.rules’ to work as
>>> intended, though. If there's interest in such a change, I can
>>> prepare
>>> a patch?
>>
>> Are OPTIONAL_DIRS parallel? For some reaso...