ben.boeckel added a comment. In D137059#3904256 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D137059#3904256>, @ChuanqiXu wrote:
> In my mind, it is OK for CMake to support one-phase compilation model in the > short term. And the fact that clang also supports the 2-phase compilation > wouldn't affect CMake. Do I understand right? I mean, if the 2-phase > compilation wouldn't affect CMake, CMake should be able to ignore it. My > thought is that there are many more build systems in the world. And I know > many of them would handle the dependency them self fully instead of translate > the dependency to other build scripts like `make` and `ninja`. And I think it > should be good for the compiler to remain different possibilities for > different build systems (or tools). Indeed. Even if everything supports 2-phase, I suspect there are cases where 1-phase might still be better. But again, this needs real world numbers and testing to actually perform (more because of build graph shapes than individual TU timings). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D137059/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D137059 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
