On 16/07/2014 02:38, Jonathan Roelofs wrote:
On 7/15/14, 3:22 PM, Nico Weber wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Alp Toker <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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]> <mailto:[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]>>
<mailto:[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
<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.
There's a buildbot that uses it, and people fix it if it breaks. (See
e.g. this
change.)
(Note that I'm not particularly attached to the make build – if the
llvm project
decides to drop make and only keep cmake around, I wouldn't argue
against that.
But that hasn't happened yet.)
ISTR hearing discussion about there being difficulty getting CMake to
use the just-built-clang to build compiler_rt. Until that's resolved,
that kind of makes CMake dead in the water for cross builds...
This sounds a little suspect. LLVM/clang is compiled to run on the build
host (a specific architecture), whereas runtime libraries are built by
the user/middleware vendor to run on any one of many possible target
machines (e.g. a mobile phone or dishwasher, requiring its own build
environment, SDK, headers etc.)
The fact they both have build systems or contain source code is
incidental -- the latter is really just user data at the point the
toolchain and no build system integration is possible. Perhaps CMake
pulled in the wrong folder by mistake due to a bad SVN checkout?
Jon
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 :-)
Maybe "with make"? "for make"? I don't speak English, but there's
probably some
verbal construct to express the sentiment I'm going for :-)
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
<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].__edu
<mailto:[email protected]>>
<mailto:[email protected].__edu
<mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected].__edu
<mailto:[email protected]>>>
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/__mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
<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
--
http://www.nuanti.com
the browser experts
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
