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

Duncan Sands wrote: > Do ordinary users need to have cmake if they want to build llvm? > If so, that's bad because they'll have to install it (unlike the > current setup, where only very standard tools are needed). That's not the only problem with cmake. The autotools may be a big and ugly beast, but that's because they're trying to solve a big and ugly problem for

Óscar Fuentes wrote: > Albert Graef <Dr.Graef at t-online.de> writes: >> Here are some points worth considering: >> http://www.remlab.net/op/cmake.shtml (Some of these may already be >> addressed in newer cmake versions, I haven't checked recently.) > > [...] > > Please, some LLVM release manager (Tanya?), read Albert's web page and > evaluate

Albert Graef <Dr.Graef at t-online.de> writes: [snip] > Here are some points worth considering: > http://www.remlab.net/op/cmake.shtml (Some of these may already be > addressed in newer cmake versions, I haven't checked recently.) Albert, Some points you mention on your web page are solved. Others are not applicable to LLVM. Others can be fixed within CMake itself (with some

> Óscar Fuentes wrote: >> Albert Graef <Dr.Graef at t-online.de> writes: >>> Here are some points worth considering: >>> http://www.remlab.net/op/cmake.shtml (Some of these may already be >>> addressed in newer cmake versions, I haven't checked recently.) >> >> [...] >> >> Please, some LLVM release manager (Tanya?), read

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

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

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

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

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

Albert Graef wrote: > The broken mingw support (as pointed out by Stuart) [...] s/Stuart/Kenneth/ Sorry. -- Dr. Albert Gr"af Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany Email: Dr.Graef at t-online.de, ag at muwiinfa.geschichte.uni-mainz.de WWW: http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag

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

[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,

Óscar Fuentes wrote: > 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. Ok, thanks for clarifying. So I conclude that most of the complaints raised on Remi's page are still valid. > As already mentioned several times, I

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

Óscar Fuentes wrote: > Some points you mention on your web page are solved. Which ones? (Just curious.) > Others are not applicable to LLVM. That might be the case now, but the lack of even basic functionality in some areas (in particular, no advanced feature checks, no make dist/distcheck, no make uninstall, lack of useful trace options when something goes wrong during a build, arcane

On Sat, 2004-09-25 at 12:19, Paolo Invernizzi wrote: > Here is the pre-pre-pre alpha of the file, llease be kind <g> > > I give up on TableGen... cannot build the flex/bison emitted files ;-( > With my hacked version of the checkout the script build Fibonacci.exe > and HowToUseJIT.exe among with the proper libraries. > > I included also a demo version of the

On Sep 26, 2004, at 12:58 AM, Alkis Evlogimenos wrote: > * It would be nice if it is broken down to smaller files (I see you > mention this in the comments). Also a file per tool/library can give us > what make cannot: cd into a tools subdir and run scons: this will build > the tool and all its dependances. Thats true, splitting it is a must. I simply feel more confortable during

Compiling ffmpge2theora from SVN appears to die while complaining about undefined symbols? This documents my attempt to build ffmpeg2theora from SVN on Mac OS X version 10.5.7. I'm using libogg 1.1.4, libvorbis 1.2.3 and Thusnelda built from SVN... jason$ svn co http://svn.xiph.org/trunk/ffmpeg2theora/ ... Checked out revision 16330. jason$ cd ffmpeg2theora;curl -C - -O

>From: Paolo Invernizzi <arathorn at fastwebnet.it> >Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:20:39 +0200 > >I'm using scons to generate that files from .in files. I implemented in it >the configure check regarding iterators, hash and so on... >something like: > Hey, you've found the tool that makes it possible to generically reading Makefiles... Cool - The tool I've

On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 10:22 -0500, Christopher Lamb wrote: > I don't want to drive this too off topic, but I should be clear that I > wasn't suggesting that the LLVM project adopt XPJ as it's official > config file format for Visual Studio. I have found it useful to use > XPJ to generate the initial VS projects for a code base that doesn't > already have VS projects.