similar to: [LLVMdev] Deprecating autoconf/make?

On 22 May 2013 16:14, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > I fear starting another centi-thread on this but I'll give it a shot. > > We're currently supporting two build systems which is definitely one > more than we (or I) want to support. > > I don't know of any support in autoconf past the > --host/--build/--target case

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>wrote: > Hi All, > > I fear starting another centi-thread on this but I'll give it a shot. > > We're currently supporting two build systems which is definitely one > more than we (or I) want to support. > > I don't know of any support in autoconf past the > --host/--build/--target

Yes please. On the practical side, our internal CI does cmake/autoconf x debug/release x gcc/clang (on linux). Cutting out autoconf reduces the number of combinations per build from 8 to 4. This probably doesn't matter to most people but it would be great for us. paul On 2013-05-22 7:14 PM, "Eric Christopher" <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: >Hi All, > >I fear

Paul, you can also just not test autoconf. Why does it matter to you if the autoconf files are there or not ? On May 22, 2013, at 8:30 PM, "Redmond, Paul" <paul.redmond at intel.com> wrote: > Yes please. > > On the practical side, our internal CI does cmake/autoconf x debug/release > x gcc/clang (on linux). Cutting out autoconf reduces the number of >

CMake is just a makefile (or <insert build system here>) generator. So something like cmake <stuff>; make check-all works already. Or did you have something else in mind? -eric On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> Hi All, >> >> I fear starting another centi-thread on this but I'll

On May 22, 2013, at 4:14 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > I fear starting another centi-thread on this but I'll give it a shot. > > We're currently supporting two build systems which is definitely one > more than we (or I) want to support. > > I don't know of any support in autoconf past the > --host/--build/--target

----- Original Message ----- > Hi All, > > I fear starting another centi-thread on this but I'll give it a shot. > > We're currently supporting two build systems which is definitely one > more than we (or I) want to support. > > I don't know of any support in autoconf past the > --host/--build/--target case that's not supported in cmake. I'll send

----- Original Message ----- > CMake is just a makefile (or <insert build system here>) generator. > So > something like cmake <stuff>; make check-all works already. > > Or did you have something else in mind? I meant the stuff in projects/test-suite. Maybe CMake can just invoke the necessary sub-configure? -Hal > > -eric > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 8:33 PM, Charles Davis <cdavis5x at gmail.com> wrote: > > On May 22, 2013, at 5:14 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > Can anyone see good a reason not to move to cmake as our only build > > configuration system and drop future support for autoconf + makefiles > > now that 3.3 has branched? > +1. > - CMake

On May 22, 2013, at 5:14 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > Hi All, > > Can anyone see good a reason not to move to cmake as our only build > configuration system and drop future support for autoconf + makefiles > now that 3.3 has branched? I can think of several: - When the Clang CMakefiles go to build compiler-rt (if present), they use the compiler used to build Clang and not the

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 04:31:47PM -0700, Bob Wilson wrote: > > > > > On Oct 31, 2014, at 4:19 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri Oct 31 2014 at 3:11:22 PM Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net >

> On Oct 31, 2014, at 4:19 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri Oct 31 2014 at 3:11:22 PM Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net <mailto:tom at stellard.net>> wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to propose deprecating the autoconf build system at some > point in the future. Maintaining two build systems is a hassle not > only

Hi all, Time for another update on the status of the CMake build system. Completed: * Bug 18496 - [cmake] .S assembly files not compiled by cmake in libclang_rt.ARCH * Bug 22725 - lldb build with cmake fails with "Program error: Invalid parameters entered, -h for help. " * Update GettingStarted to prefer CMake Still Outstanding: * Bug 14109 - CMake build for compiler-rt should use

On 23 May 2013 00:14, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > Can anyone see good a reason not to move to cmake as our only build > configuration system and drop future support for autoconf + makefiles > now that 3.3 has branched? > Hi Eric, The main issue I can see is that all buildbots currently use autoconf and changing it is not a simple matter of using CMake.

Dear, I am currently working on one specific architecture. When I make changes and try to "make" it takes a very long time as It compiles all the files in the source. My question is since I am only editing a few files in the architecture directory and some files in include directory, Can I speed up my "make" by running "make" only for a few files? Can such changes

On May 22, 2013, at 4:14 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > I don't know of any support in autoconf past the > --host/--build/--target case that's not supported in cmake. I'll send > out an assertion here that this support isn't necessary and any system > that needs it can instead move to: > > build native clang > build next clang

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jim Grosbach" <grosbach at apple.com> > To: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 2:46:49 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] make check rebuilds the project? > > > > > > > > > > > cmake+ninja is a non-option for

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Jim Grosbach" <grosbach at apple.com> >> To: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org> >> Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu >> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 2:46:49 PM >> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] make check rebuilds the

I'm adding feature to detect customized pragma and mark those region in LLVM IR using Metadata. I want to let programmer give additional directives to compiler. So I put some functions, variables, and 'cout' on clang. So, based on my understanding on your comment, it may be natural to have long compilation time. My machine has Intel Xeon(R) CPU E31230 @ 3.20GHz * 8 with 8GM RAM, which

The build for the Android sanitizers is unique in that it needs to link against the Android system libraries to create a shared object and its test suites. The current solution to build ASan is to drop the compiler-rt repo into the llvm source tree and cross-compile the llvm build for Android. This is a bit awkward for few reasons: 1) Not all of llvm can be cross-compiled for Android.