search for: bmake

...you might not even realize that BSD Make is in control. I would. There is already a llvm *port*, it's using whatever is native to llvm, it looks like CMake is provided, but GNU Make compatible Makefiles (via configure) are being used. I looked at the Makefiles being produced, they're not bmake compatible. I don't care what they claim, look at the actual Makefiles being produced. I already gave you a couple of very easy to spot sentinels, ways you can absolutely prove the code is or is not GNU Make(gmake), or BSD Make (bmake): look for the conditionals, they don't look alike, an...

Hi, Óscar Fuentes wrote: > Chuck Robey <chuckr at telenix.org> writes: > > >>> Just checked that the makefiles generated by cmake work with `make' on >>> FreeBSD 7.2 x86. The build fails while building `opt' because libdl is >>> missing. >>> >> They absolutely do work, even on FreeBSD-current( I run that here), >>

...you, just let me know if you're curious. I know our make and the GNU make, both, pretty well. I did give you one example of a statement I found in your makefiles, which I'm absolutely certain can't be understood by our make. Among several other things, the "gmake" and "bmake" makefile conditionals don't look very much alike. You CAN'T write one makefile which will automatically work in either system, I tried that some years ago. I could explain that, too, but I won't bore you, unless you tell me you're interested. I've been wanting to recode...

Chuck Robey <chuckr at telenix.org> writes: >> Just checked that the makefiles generated by cmake work with `make' on >> FreeBSD 7.2 x86. The build fails while building `opt' because libdl is >> missing. > > They absolutely do work, even on FreeBSD-current( I run that here), > but not using the native make (the one built as part of "make world"

...ys "Sometimes, building with *make* >> can fail on some modules. You should try using *gmake* instead." So >> perhaps YMMV... >> > > [snip] > > It's NOT possible to make a single Makefile, one that has conditionals in it, be > compatible with both bmake and gmake, because their conditionals don't look > alike. It's possible to produce a bmake or gmake compatible makefile, but I > haven't seen any project do that, actually. Certainly, you can write (for the > autoconf) a Makefile.in that would be compatible with bmake, but I...

...../../contrib/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Frontend/PrintPreprocessedOutput.cpp:36: internal compiler error: in var_ann, at tree-flow-inline.h:127 Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. See <URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions. *** Error code 1 Stop. bmake[3]: stopped in /src/lib/clang/libclangfrontend *** Error code 1 Stop. bmake[2]: stopped in /src/lib/clang *** Error code 1 Stop. bmake[1]: stopped in /src *** Error code 1 Stop. bmake: stopped in /src *** [buildworld] Error code 1 Stop in /src. TB --- 2013-11-13 13:33:26 - WARNING: /usr/bin/mak...

...acceptable as it is almost as heavy as > a C++ compiler itself. That said, I don't really care about the > Makefiles, just about configure and the associated loggic to craete > Config.h and friends. I would expect FreeBSD to have similar concerns. For the FreeBSD base system, we use a bmake-based build system for LLVM, but that is based on the Makefiles generated by CMake. I believe that we're now using CMake for the version of LLVM in ports. David

...aicasm; PATH=/obj/sparc64.sparc64/src/tmp/legacy/usr/sbin:/obj/sparc64.sparc64/src/tmp/legacy/usr/bin:/obj/sparc64.sparc64/src/tmp/legacy/usr/games:/obj/sparc64.sparc64/src/tmp/legacy/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin MAKEOBJDIRPREFIX=/obj/sparc64.sparc64/src/sys/LINT/modules /obj/src/make.amd64/bmake SSP_CFLAGS= -DNO_CPU_CFLAGS -DNO_CTF -DEARLY_BUILD all cc -O2 -pipe -I. -I/src/sys/modules/aic7xxx/aicasm/../../../dev/aic7xxx/aicasm -std=gnu99 -Wsystem-headers -Werror -Wall -Wno-format-y2k -W -Wno-unused-parameter -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith -Wreturn-type -Wcast-qua...

...no-string-plus-int" cc1: error: unrecognized command line option "-Wno-tautological-compare" cc1: error: unrecognized command line option "-Wno-parentheses-equality" cc1: error: unrecognized command line option "-Wno-knr-promoted-parameter" *** Error code 1 Stop. bmake[3]: stopped in /src/lib/libcompiler_rt *** Error code 1 Stop. bmake[2]: stopped in /src *** Error code 1 Stop. bmake[1]: stopped in /src *** Error code 1 Stop. bmake: stopped in /src *** [buildworld] Error code 1 Stop in /src. TB --- 2013-10-31 20:10:45 - WARNING: /usr/bin/make returned exit co...

...kefile via the supplied configure script. Right at the top of both Makefiles is the GNU-style conditional "ifeq", and that's a GNU conditional, one which just CAN'T work from any BSD Make (would you mind if I abbreviated GNU Make with "gmake" and the BSD Make with "bmake" ?) Anyhow, this is the evidence I have that shows me that it's just not possible that you ran this Makefile via bmake. OK, the -f argument can be used to make either bmake or gmake use files other than the default ones (first default "makefile", 2nd default "Makefile&quot...

...gt; > a C++ compiler itself. That said, I don't really care about the >> > Makefiles, just about configure and the associated loggic to craete >> > Config.h and friends. I would expect FreeBSD to have similar concerns. >> >> For the FreeBSD base system, we use a bmake-based build system for >> LLVM, but that is based on the Makefiles generated by CMake. I >> believe that we're now using CMake for the version of LLVM in ports. > > For most versions we're using autoconf because it lets us build clang > against an installed LLVM. The...

Paul Melis wrote: > You assume that the makefiles CMake produces need to do some kind of > conditional stuff. I don't think they do anything like that, as that has > already been resolved on a higher level, i.e. with CMake's own little > language used in the CMakeLists.txt files. In fact, the generated > makefiles DO seem to be usable by both GNU make and BSD make. >

[snip] > Just to clarify things: have you *tried* to build LLVM with the > makefiles generated by cmake on your BSD system? Just checked that the makefiles generated by cmake work with `make' on FreeBSD 7.2 x86. The build fails while building `opt' because libdl is missing. -- Óscar

Chuck Robey <chuckr at telenix.org> writes: > I've never asked for (and wouldn't personally contribute to) any project to > generate BSD Makefiles from CMake input. My feelings are, you generate BSD > Makefiles directly, they are NOT that complicated, and making them be generated > like that reduces the simplicity, make troubleshooting more difficult. Fair enough, but

...built-in function $(B!F(Bdgettext$(B!G (BcorStruct.c: In function $(B!F(Bspatial_recalc$(B!G(B: corStruct.c:1053: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in function $(B!F(Bexp$(B!G (BcorStruct.c:1078: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in function $(B!F(Bdgettext$(B!G (Bmake: *** [corStruct.o] Error 1 ERROR: compilation failed for package 'nlme' ** Removing '/usr/local/lib/R/site-library/nlme' The downloaded packages are in /tmp/Rtmpjb1Cc1/downloaded_packages Warning message: installation of package 'nlme' had non-zero exit status in: i...

Hello, I'd like to switch off this silly "Nakatomi Socrates" message which reminds me on Linux and their childish naming schemes. It is only cosmetics, but it bothers me whenever I switch on the laptop. I guess there is a switch already prsent to have in the bootloader config? Thanks, oh -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name:

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