search for: röthlisberger

>From: David Röthlisberger <david at rothlis.net> >Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] is configure+make dead yet? > >If the following statement is true, then which build system to choose >is a no-brainer: >> cmake, while ugly, can be made to support all of our use cases. There &g...

On 06/22/2012 07:42 AM, David Röthlisberger wrote: > On 22 Jun 2012, at 00:08, Óscar Fuentes wrote: >> > Albert Graef <Dr.Graef at t-online.de> writes: >> > - libclang ends up as liblibclang.so (building clang along with LLVM). >>> >> Surely that's not intended? >> > >&gt...

On 21 Jun 2012, at 01:19, Chandler Carruth wrote: > cmake, while ugly, can be made to support all of our use cases. There > are some use cases that autoconf+make can't support, So far I have assumed that "use cases that autoconf+make can't support" is referring to Windows support. (I am not a Windows user my...

On 26 Jun 2012, at 20:26, James K. Lowden wrote: > I used autoconf to build Clang not because I'm "stuck" on a > system without Cmake, but because I have expertise in autoconf and none > with Cmake. I've never found Cmake compelling enough to justify > learning a new feature-test and dependency syntax. Before...

On 30 Jul 2012, at 19:18, Tom Stellard wrote: > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:54:21PM -0400, Justin Holewinski wrote: >> Add a ENABLE_EXPERIMENTAL or ENABLE_STAGING flag that allows experimental features to be built (default: OFF) >> Add an LLVM_STAGING_TARGETS list that contains all of the staging back-ends >> Allow...

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:54:21PM -0400, Justin Holewinski wrote: > On Jul 27, 2012, at 7:05 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 27, 2012, at 1:39 PM, Tom Stellard wrote: > >> > >>> We also need to come up with a plan regarding cutting r...

On 28 May 2012, at 16:46, Mikael Lyngvig wrote: > > Hi, > > I accidentally noticed the following line when building LLVM and Clang on Windows 7 x64 using Mingw64: > > Linking CXX shared library ..\..\..\..\bin\liblibclang.dll > > "Liblib" seems a bit overkill. FYI. See http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug...

On 22 Jun 2012, at 00:08, Óscar Fuentes wrote: > Albert Graef <Dr.Graef at t-online.de> writes: > - libclang ends up as liblibclang.so (building clang along with LLVM). >> Surely that's not intended? > > There was some discussion about this on the past, but I can't recall all > the details. In...

On 6/27/2012 7:55 AM, David Röthlisberger wrote: > On 21 Jun 2012, at 01:19, Chandler Carruth wrote: >> cmake, while ugly, can be made to support all of our use cases. There >> are some use cases that autoconf+make can't support, > So far I have assumed that "use cases that autoconf+make can't sup...

Mason Wheeler wrote: >>From: David Röthlisberger <david at rothlis.net> >>Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] is configure+make dead yet? >> >>If the following statement is true, then which build system to choose >>is a no-brainer: > >>> cmake, while ugly, can be ma...

Hi, I accidentally noticed the following line when building LLVM and Clang on Windows 7 x64 using Mingw64: Linking CXX shared library ..\..\..\..\bin\liblibclang.dll "Liblib" seems a bit overkill. FYI. BTW, for those who happen to search on LLVM, Clang, Windows, and Mingw64: The v3.1 release does NOT build with Mingw64. I believe this has been fixed in the Subversion sources as they build without problems....

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: > David Röthlisberger <david at rothlis.net> > writes: > > > On 21 Jun 2012, at 01:19, Chandler Carruth wrote: > >> cmake, while ugly, can be made to support all of our use cases. There > >> are some use cases that aut...

On 28 Jun 2012, at 08:58, Jean-Daniel Dupas wrote: > It's a chicken and egg problems. Xcode users don't use cmake because it > generates poor Xcode projects. So what *do* XCode users do (to build llvm/clang)? Do they somehow set up XCode to build using the autoconf build system? Do they build llvm/clang outside of XCode? If the...

Albert Graef <Dr.Graef at t-online.de> writes: > On 06/21/2012 04:22 PM, Óscar Fuentes wrote: >> About the "many features" that cmake lacks, can you provide a list, >> please? > > Generally it works fairly well, but here are some differences to the > autoconf-base...

Is there anybody who is certain that our autoconf dependency needs to stay around? Are there developers stuck on systems that don't have a recent enough cmake in their most recent release, or maybe are using some features from configure+make that the cmake build system doesn't implement? If nobody...