similar to: [LLVMdev] Recommending CMake for VC++ users.

On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 04:07:19PM -0800, xavier wrote: > I was trying to know if LLVM 1.5 works better with VC++ 2003 and to > what extent. This link: > > http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/releases/1.5/ > > Referred to in : http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/ReleaseNotes.html > > Is broken LLVM 1.5 hasn't been released yet. :) This is the current work-in-progress that will be

I am currently playing around with llvm using Visual C++ Express (beta). It works flawlessly. It takes a while to get started but once you do, everything is perfect. Make sure to get the latest CVS sources, the 1.4 release doesn't play nice with Visual Studio. Once you do, extract the file I attach to this email into the llvm\win32 folder. Then add llvm/win32\tools folder to a list of

I have got the latest CVS release of LLVM. And built the Win32 MS VC++ 2003 port with modifications for MS VC++ 2005. Do bear in mind the Visual Studio ports are by no means complete, and are on going. Microsoft Visual Studio 2005 Beta (codename Whidbey) can be got from Microsoft Beta program nearly for free; the cost of postage from :-

Óscar Fuentes wrote: > Argiris Kirtzidis <akyrtzi at gmail.com> writes: > > >> How does updating the CMake produced VC++ project files work ? >> I mean: >> >> -I have CMake produce VC++ project files >> -Compile the solution >> -Do a svn update and pick up a couple of files >> -Have CMake produce new project files >> -Now, do I have

Argiris Kirtzidis <akyrtzi at gmail.com> writes: > How does updating the CMake produced VC++ project files work ? > I mean: > > -I have CMake produce VC++ project files > -Compile the solution > -Do a svn update and pick up a couple of files > -Have CMake produce new project files > -Now, do I have to rebuild the entire solution again ? AFAIK, it should do the right

Hi, I was trying to know if LLVM 1.5 works better with VC++ 2003 and to what extent. This link: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/releases/1.5/ Referred to in : http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/ReleaseNotes.html Is broken Where can I find more information? In particular: Can the LLVM be compiled using VC++ 2003? Does it generate bytecode and executable code? Thanks

I think the reasons we would like to have CMake for clang are the same as for LLVM, manually maintaining the project files is a big pain and not done by that many developers. I don't have any experience with CMake but I did try it out and it seemed to work well, unfortunately I only have VS 2003 so I got blocked on C++ issues building with that compiler. However, the project file generation

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

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 Sep 20, 2008, at 2:22 PM, Óscar Fuentes wrote: > 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? Yes. >> From the point of view of a MSVC++ user, the new build system is >> trivial > to maintain: you can add a

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

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. >>

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 requested. There are three MS C++ compilers

How does updating the CMake produced VC++ project files work ? I mean: -I have CMake produce VC++ project files -Compile the solution -Do a svn update and pick up a couple of files -Have CMake produce new project files -Now, do I have to rebuild the entire solution again ? -Argiris

Mike Stump <mrs at apple.com> writes: > On Oct 23, 2008, at 5:04 PM, Óscar Fuentes wrote: >> Now tblgen.exe builds fine with my CMake build system. Guess it is >> the same case for the VC++ project files. > > Oh, does clang building work with CMake? If not, wanna cons it > up? :-) Thanks. Giving a compelling reason why you'll like to build clang using

2008/12/30 srs <skaflotten at gmail.com> > Óscar Fuentes wrote: > > srs <skaflotten at gmail.com> writes: > > > > > >>>> While testing my compiler on win32 in JIT mode, I ran into a couple of > >>>> issues: > >>>> > >>>> 1. I linked the compiler with the lib files resulting from the cmake >

I'll take a look at it. VC++ projects shouldn't be modifying anything in the src tree, as it's set up in src != obj mode, with obj being win32. Not sure when I can get around to it though... I'm in FreeBSD mode right now :) > From llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu Mon Dec 20 16:06:07 2004 > From: "Henrik Bach" <henrik_bach_llvm at hotmail.com> > To: llvmdev

Yes, it should find windows.h with the default configuration. But you have to be suspicious of beta code that Microsoft gives out for free. It might just be very buggy, or it might be deliberately crippled. Considering the price tag on Visual Studio, it's one or the other (and probably both). Out of curiosity, did it accept the solution and project files as is, or did it want to

On 12/3/07, Stefan Reuther <streu@gmx.de> wrote: > John Miles wrote: > > What's wrong with a plain old .bat file, or even an NMAKE .mak file? > > Ship two files, debug.bat and release.bat, and call it good. > > > > It is best to leave project-file creation up to individual users, > > in my opinion. > > I second that. When I played around with Speex