On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Alp Toker <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 15/07/2014 05:07, Nico Weber wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Alp Toker <[email protected] <mailto: >> [email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Author: alp >> Date: Mon Jul 14 18:15:48 2014 >> New Revision: 213010 >> >> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=213010&view=rev >> Log: >> Define ENABLE_CLANG_ARCMT in the legacy build system too >> >> >> As far as I know, make is just as supported as cmake, no? >> > > Not really. it hasn't seen any of the feature work CMake has for at least > a year. You only need to look at SVN logs to see all the hard work and > hours spent on the CMake setup to make it outclass the other setup. >
Or to see that the CMake build is maintenance for some reason ;-) > > Platform support is limited compared to CMake, likewise cross-compilation > has been left behind thanks to the remarkable CMake sub-invocation work. No > compilation database generation, meaning a poor experience for anyone > trying to use tooling on the codebase. Broken dependency scanning, you have > to "touch" files or risk getting miscompiles. And there are many Windows > developers contributing these days -- their enhancements basically only > ever get added to CMake while Makefiles are left with minimal build fixes. > > Then there's bit rot. Various clang tests aren't supported with the > 'makefiles' build -- they're simply not run -- the set of installed headers > isn't necessarily canonical with makefiles either. Whenever I've pinged > that makefiles need to track some change or other, nobody's been too > interested in following up. So users really aren't getting the "full LLVM > experience" with it at this point, the 'makefiles' bots aren't getting full > coverage etc. > > As far as I can tell it would take a large effort to get the traditional > build system on par with CMake at this point and nobody's puting in the > time to actually do that. While supported, the old system definitely meets > the definition of "legacy". Only commits could have changed that, not any > amount of hand waving or arguing that it's still the default in "buildit" > :-) > Sounds like you prefer the cmake build, but there wasn't some thread about this that I missed. So please just say "in make" instead of "legacy build system" (it's more concise, too!) > > > > > > >> Modified: >> cfe/trunk/tools/libclang/Makefile >> >> Modified: cfe/trunk/tools/libclang/Makefile >> URL: >> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/tools/ >> libclang/Makefile?rev=213010&r1=213009&r2=213010&view=diff >> ============================================================ >> ================== >> --- cfe/trunk/tools/libclang/Makefile (original) >> +++ cfe/trunk/tools/libclang/Makefile Mon Jul 14 18:15:48 2014 >> @@ -37,6 +37,10 @@ ifeq ($(HOST_OS), $(filter $(HOST_OS), L >> LLVMLibsOptions += -Wl,-soname,lib$(LIBRARYNAME)$(SHLIBEXT) >> endif >> >> +ifeq ($(ENABLE_CLANG_ARCMT),1) >> + CXX.Flags += -DCLANG_ENABLE_ARCMT >> +endif >> + >> ##===------------------------------------------------------- >> ---------------===## >> # FIXME: This is copied from the 'lto' makefile. Should we share >> this? >> ##===------------------------------------------------------- >> ---------------===## >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cfe-commits mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >> >> >> > -- > http://www.nuanti.com > the browser experts > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
