similar to: [LLVMdev] Is there room for another build system?

[Repost: The mailing list was down yesterday. Sorry if this is a duplicate] I'm evaluating CMake (1) primarily as an alternative build system for Visual Studio users, although it can easily be a replacement for `configure' and hand-made makefiles too, providing a single build system for all platforms. CMake is a tool that takes a project description and configures, generates makefiles,

On Jul 30, 2008, at 9:41 AM, Óscar Fuentes wrote: > I'm evaluating CMake (1) primarily as an alternative build system for > Visual Studio users, although it can easily be a replacement for > `configure' and hand-made makefiles too, providing a single build > system > for all platforms. CMake is a tool that takes a project description > and > configures, generates

IMHO, the CMake-based build system is almost complete enough to replace current MSVC++ project files (modulo some community review and bug-fixing). Is this enough for adding it to the LLVM repo? >From the point of view of a MSVC++ user, the new build system is trivial to maintain: you can add a new library or tool executable in less time that it takes to open the project file on MSVC++, it

Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: > Ok. Killing off autoconf would be a huge bonus, but should probably > be done as a second step. My plan is a staged one: First, support MSVC++. Second, implement what `configure' does now. MSVC++ users would be the first ones to take advantage of this, instead of the current hack Visual Studio does. Finally, add capabilities

Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> writes: > Hi, > >> CMake just requires one plain text file named CMakeLists.txt on every >> source directory, and the only maintenance is to keep up to date the >> list of source files of the directory. > > can it be kept up-to-date automagically? After all, you can query > subversion to get the list of all files in a

2 more roadblocks for Visual Studio users are the inability to compile gcc and the inability to compile and run the test suite. I would not want to submit a change unless I could still compile/run gcc and pass the test suite. (Testing before submission is the way we do it where I come from - I am assuming it's the same here). On a related note, has anyone gotten the LLVM test suite working

Hi, > CMake just requires one plain text file named CMakeLists.txt on every > source directory, and the only maintenance is to keep up to date the > list of source files of the directory. can it be kept up-to-date automagically? After all, you can query subversion to get the list of all files in a directory. > 1. General LLVM users: Are you so happy with `configure' and

Hi Oscar, On 30-Jul-08, at 9:41 AM, Óscar Fuentes wrote: > 1. General LLVM users: Are you so happy with `configure' and hand-made > makefiles that you wont consider an alternative? If you are > interested, > I can steer my work to cover all platforms. We (RapidMind) are very interested. We would very much like to see a unified build system across MSVC/Windows and gcc/Linux/OS

I too have done some work on an alternative build system for llvm. It is based on boost.build. Of course, it's quite a large project and I'm not ready to contribute the work yet. Ideally I was hoping to replace all of makefile functionality with jamfiles. Boost.build is attractive because support for new compilers/tools comes with new releases of boost.build and need not be added

Stefanus Du Toit <sdt at rapidmind.com> writes: [snip] > We have considered contributing such a build system, and if we were to > do so would probably base it on SCons (http://www.scons.org/) because > we already use SCons extensively. At first, SCons is what I intended too. But then I read about the KDE experience and took the safe route :-) [snip] > Are you intending

> > > 2. VC++ users: Are you interested on a tool that generates project > files or makefiles for your IDE or your free VC++ compiler, and with a > simpler maintenance? > Yes! Already with a feature request - can it test for the required tools (bison/flex) are present and usable? Cheers George

Óscar Fuentes wrote: > CMake just requires one plain text file named CMakeLists.txt on every > source directory, and the only maintenance is to keep up to date the > list of source files of the directory. Has anyone read "Recursive Make Considered Harmful"? http://miller.emu.id.au/pmiller/books/rmch/ http://aegis.sourceforge.net/auug97.pdf I have been using single

Albert Graef <Dr.Graef at t-online.de> writes: >> Some points you mention on your web page are solved. > > Which ones? (Just curious.) No cross-compilation. C99 compiler check missing: You can check the compiler support for a flag with just one line. pkg-config support broken. My understanding is that it is fixed. >> Others are not applicable to LLVM. > > That

Cyrille Berger wrote: > On Sunday 18 May 2008, Óscar Fuentes wrote: >> Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> writes: >> >> [snip] >> >>> Others have suggested alternative build systems before like cmake. >>> Apparently cmake can autogenerate VC++ and Xcode project files from >>> the same thing that it builds from on unix systems. >>

my build environment: Win7 x64 VStudio 2017 Community Edition 15.8.4 (latest) CMake 3.12.1 (x86) git 2.19.0 (latest, x64) Python 2.7.2 (x86) x64 Native Tools Command Prompt for VS 2017 directory structure: test     llvm <-- git clone https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm, git checkout release_70       tools         clang <-- git clone https://github.com/llvm-mirror/clang, git checkout

Okay; it doesn't seem to build with cmake, though? C:\d\clang>\cmake-2.8.0-win32-x86\bin\cmake.exe c:\d\clang-2.7 -- Building for: NMake Makefiles -- The C compiler identification is MSVC -- The CXX compiler identification is MSVC -- Check for CL compiler version -- Check for CL compiler version - 1500 -- Check if this is a free VC compiler -- Check if this is a free VC compiler - no --

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: > I'm evaluating CMake (1) primarily as an alternative build system for > Visual Studio users, although it can easily be a replacement for > `configure' and hand-made makefiles too, providing a single build system > for all platforms. CMake is a tool that takes a project description and >

Óscar Fuentes wrote: > I'm evaluating CMake (1) primarily as an alternative build system for > Visual Studio users, although it can easily be a replacement for > `configure' and hand-made makefiles too, providing a single build system > for all platforms. CMake is a tool that takes a project description and > configures, generates makefiles, project files for IDEs, etc as

I have installed R 2.7.2 in windows, now i am trying to install R oracle... I am using Oracle 10g. i have downloaded the Roracle 0.5-9 sources, and i am trying to compile it using Vc++, i found from readme files and forum that, we need to use the makefile.win in the \src folder and nmake utility of vc++, since i have not worked with vc++, i don't have any idea , how to use the nmake utility,

On Sunday 18 May 2008, Óscar Fuentes wrote: > Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> writes: > > [snip] > > > Others have suggested alternative build systems before like cmake. > > Apparently cmake can autogenerate VC++ and Xcode project files from > > the same thing that it builds from on unix systems. > > cmake creating VC++ project files does not appeal