LLVM Drops Its Autoconf Build System

[phoronix]

Phoronix: LLVM Drops Its Autoconf Build System

LLVM/Clang is the latest high-profile project to abandon its Autoconf build system...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=LLVM-Drops-Autoconf

[cl333r]

I'm glad they moved to CMake, not because I use it myself, but because Autohell is the worst build system I ever heard of, it's the X11 of build systems.

But learning CMake takes a lot of time because making a cross-platform build is hard because the big 3 OSes live in their own worlds with their own rules and restrictions and you have to test your build on any of them and you're unlikely to generate a cross-platform build OOTB.

[CapsAdmin]

Cmake gets the job done but I wish it didn't have a scripting language that feels like batch.

[pipe13]

scons ftw!

[computerquip]

Cmake gets the job done but I wish it didn't have a scripting language that feels like batch.

I feel it's worse than batch frankly. It's one reason I stick to Tup or if I need environment validation, scons. Unfortunately, scons is quite a bit dated now adays...

[pal666]

autoconf is not build system. it is system for passing parameters to build system.

[Alliancemd]

I heard good stuff about Google'z Bazel: http://bazel.io/
But I have not tried it yet, mainly because the projects I work on are mainly Qt projects.

[lowflyer]

qmake.

[unixfan2001]

autoconf is not build system. it is system for passing parameters to build system.

It's part of autotools/the GNU Build System. While it's not the build system itself, it's part of it.
autoconf generates configuration shellscripts which, when run, generate the Makefile which is then read by make.

[s_j_newbury]

Personally, I like autotools. I've never really understood all the hate directed at it. I find it really quite easy to deploy, and it makes cross-building a breeze. Is it perfect? No. Are other systems easier/faster/less fragile/more portable, sure. All at the same time? In my opinion, no.