On 16/07/2014 00:38, Nico Weber wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Alp Toker <[email protected]
<mailto:[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]> <mailto:[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,
No, I mean it really isn't that well supported.
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!)
"in make"? That's a new one :-)
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]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
--
http://www.nuanti.com
the browser experts
--
http://www.nuanti.com
the browser experts
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
