similar to: [LLVMdev] Fix using old BUILD_OBJ_ROOT/BUILD_SRC_ROOT in 2 LLVM makefiles [PATCH]

If you're on the new Makefile system, you will want to update your Makefile.rules. The patch below provides some important fixes for parallel builds and dependencies. It also adds some new features like the -local targets. For example, you can now build "all-local" to build the local directory without recursing into subdirectories. See the comments below for details of the change.

yue wrote: > hi, > about [LLVMdev] another question > > thanks > > yueqiang One other thing you might want to try is to put your object tree in a directory that is *not* inside of your source tree. Currently, we don't support using separate object trees that are subdirectories of the source tree. In other words: Will work: ========== SRC_ROOT=/home/yue/llvm

Hi John, I have attached my Makefile.config. I noticed that I did'nt have SRC_ROOT and OBJ_ROOT variables defined as such in my environment. But I noticed that this is defined in the Makefile.config by default to the same values. All the same, I tried defining both these variables in my .cshrc, but I still get the same error. The main directory for me is /home/llvm, and I have

The proposed makefile changes have been committed. If you are working from CVS head and you use the LLVM Makefile System in your own project, please make a note of the following: 1. If your makefiles use any BUILD_* variables, they now need to be prefixed with PROJ_ instead of BUILD_. For example, BUILD_SRC_ROOT is now PROJ_SRC_ROOT. 2. There are additional requirements

The proposed makefile changes have been committed. If you are working from CVS head and you use the LLVM Makefile System in your own project, please make a note of the following: 1. If your makefiles use any BUILD_* variables, they now need to be prefixed with PROJ_ instead of BUILD_. For example, BUILD_SRC_ROOT is now PROJ_SRC_ROOT. 2. There are additional requirements for projects.

The llvm.cs.uiuc.edu site does not seem to be updating at the moment so it contains the old instructions. If you're looking for the new instructions on the Projects.html page, you can view them here: http://illuvium.net/docs/Projects.html Reid. On Sat, 2005-01-15 at 18:30, Reid Spencer wrote: > The proposed makefile changes have been committed. If you are working > from CVS head and

Folks, If you're working from CVS sources and have updated recently, you should know that the Makefiles now place the tools in a different directory. This may affect your path. Three changes were made in resolving PR456: 1. $BUILD_OBJ_ROOT/lib/Debug --> $BUILD_OBJ_ROOT/Debug/lib 2. $BUILD_OBJ_ROOT/tools/Debug --> $BUILD_OBJ_ROOT/Debug/bin 3. Example programs are now placed in

Hi, In buildling XPS using LLVM's makefile system, I'm finding that there's a few things lacking in our support for LLVM-based projects. The items below should help but may require changes to project makefiles. I thought I'd check before just going and doing it. 1. Various autoconf generated variables (e.g. abs_top_srcdir) are set in the makefiles but not used. They

My final foray into the makefiles for a while has been completed. The dist-check target is the golden nugget I was hoping to get out of automake. But, now LLVM Makefiles have it too. dist-check does the following: * builds everything with "check" to ensure the source of the distribution is sane, essentially "make check". * builds the distribution tar balls with

Jeff & others A couple words on how lib/System works that might help you. 1. The configure script identifies the build host and puts it in the $build variable. We use that to determine the basic kind of platform and put it in a variable named $OS. The value of $OS can be: Linux, FreeBSD, Interix, SunOS, Darwin, etc. 2. The platform name is used to create a link from

I have committed changes to Makefile.rules (and others) that will assist in building releases or distributions. The new "dist" target will first perform a "make check" to ensure that all the software builds and that basic sanity checks pass (none have been implemented). If that succeeds, then the directory structure is traversed again for the "distdir" target which

On 6/18/15 6:49 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > Hi John, > > Long term we don't want to keep the burden of two build systems in > tree. CMake is turning out to be the build system we want because of > its multi-platform support, etc and as soon as the CMake system can do > everything we can do with the autoconf/makefile build I plan on > turning down the support for that

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Christopher" <echristo at gmail.com> > To: "John Criswell" <jtcriswel at gmail.com>, LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu, "Chris Bieneman" <beanz at apple.com> > Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 7:14:06 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Long-Term Support for LLVM Projects Extension to Build System? > > > On

Hi Nicolas, I finally found the root of the problem. Build was unable to locate llvm-build because it was looking for it in path/to/vmkit_src/utils/llvm-build while it was located in path/to/llvm_src/utils/llvm-build Actually llvm-build's path is defined by the path/to/llvm_src/Makefile.rules and looks like this LLVMBuildTool := $(PROJ_SRC_ROOT)/utils/llvm-build/llvm-build however in

Reid, >As for Interix support in general, I'm having a hard time determining >which variant of Unix Interix implements. It seems to be partially Posix >1 and partially Posix 2 based. Do you have any further information >related to the specific standards supported by Interix? I don't want to >incorrectly categorize the Interix support. I've discussed this subject with

Personally, I don't think LLVM projects should need much in the way of autoconf stuff. They certainly don't need to replicate things like install-sh and mkinstalldirs. I'd vote for taking these out of the projects rather than making the makefiles deal with them. I think in most cases these are just historical artifacts that have been with the projects since long before the new

Hi! In current LLVM CVS: llvm/projects/Stacker/Makefile.common.in llvm/projects/sample/Makefile.common.in llvm-java/llvm-java/Makefile.common.in have line: include $(LLVM_OBJ_ROOT)/Makefile.common that have line: include $(LLVM_OBJ_ROOT)/Makefile.config (also $(LLVM_OBJ_ROOT)/Makefile.config used in llvm-test/Makefile.config.in) and llvm/Makefile.config.in have lines: INSTALL_SH :=

On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 08:41:41PM -0000, Aaron Gray wrote: > I missed two files from the LLVM source code proper. These need > reviewing and commiting. They are trivial changes that should not > influence any other builds. Basically these functions are missing a > return statement which Visual Studio 2005 Beta flags as an error > rather than as a warning. I have put in dummy

On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 20:53, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Reid Spencer wrote: > > > Personally, I don't think LLVM projects should need much in the way of > > autoconf stuff. They certainly don't need to replicate things like > > install-sh and mkinstalldirs. I'd vote for taking these out of the > > projects rather than making the makefiles

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Reid Spencer wrote: > Personally, I don't think LLVM projects should need much in the way of > autoconf stuff. They certainly don't need to replicate things like > install-sh and mkinstalldirs. I'd vote for taking these out of the > projects rather than making the makefiles deal with them. I think in > most cases these are just historical artifacts