Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "optional_parallel_dir".
Did you mean:
optional_parallel_dirs
2009 Jan 19
3
[LLVMdev] building clang when present
...s of llvm, I've never hit
them. I only ever build 8-way, and I expect it to just work; if it
doesn't, I'd rather just fix it. Avoiding parallel isn't the way to
get a build system that just works in parallel. Lastly, I'm more
demanding than, good enough.
I'll add OPTIONAL_PARALLEL_DIRS, if people would rather it be done
that way. :-)
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
2009 Jan 19
0
[LLVMdev] building clang when present
...> them. I only ever build 8-way, and I expect it to just work; if it
> doesn't, I'd rather just fix it. Avoiding parallel isn't the way to
> get a build system that just works in parallel. Lastly, I'm more
> demanding than, good enough.
>
> I'll add OPTIONAL_PARALLEL_DIRS, if people would rather it be done
> that way. :-)
I see that a significant amount of work is devoted to enhancing/fixing
the current build framework, which is perfectly okay with me, but seeing
once and again how you guys work on the build instead of
enhancing/fixing LLVM itself makes me t...