Yeah, w.r.t. the actual builder part, it seems to me any option is going to be sufficiently simple to use that it would be hard for the incremental benefits to lldb developers to ever amortize the cost of switching. The only compelling reason to me is if one or the other tool made it much easier to get building the test cases out of tree working, but that seems unlikely.
Jim > On Jan 17, 2018, at 3:07 PM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 3:04 PM Adrian Prantl <apra...@apple.com> wrote: > > On the other hand: > - everybody already knows make > > I'm not sold on this particular reason. Make is not the LLVM build system, > CMake is. "I don't know the build system of the project I actually work on, > but I do know this other build system" is not a compelling argument. > > (As an aside, not every knows Make that well, but it doesn't actually matter > because the amount of actual Make code is negligibly small, i.e. 1-2 lines > per test in a vast majority of cases) _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
