Overhauled llvm/clang docs builds. Closes PR6613.

NOTE: 2nd part changeset for cfe trunk to follow.

*** PRE-PATCH ISSUES ADDRESSED

- clang api docs fail build from objdir
- clang/llvm api docs collide in install PREFIX/
- clang/llvm main docs collide in install
- clang/llvm main docs have full of hard coded destination
  assumptions and make use of absolute root in static html files;
  namely CommandGuide tools hard codes a website destination
  for cross references and some html cross references assume
  website root paths

*** IMPROVEMENTS

- bumped Doxygen from 1.4.x -> 1.6.3
- splits llvm/clang docs into 'main' and 'api' (doxygen) build trees
- provide consistent, reliable doc builds for both main+api docs
- support buid vs. install vs. website intentions
- support objdir builds
- document targets with 'make help'
- correct clean and uninstall operations
- use recursive dir delete only where absolutely necessary
- added call function fn.RMRF which safeguards against botched 'rm -rf';
  if any target (or any variable is evaluated) which attempts
  to remove any dirs which match a hard-coded 'safelist', a verbose
  error will be printed and make will error-stop.


git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@103213 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 30 deletions

diff --git a/docs/HistoricalNotes/2001-06-20-.NET-Differences.txt b/docs/HistoricalNotes/2001-06-20-.NET-Differences.txt
deleted file mode 100644
index 1bc2eae746..0000000000
--- a/docs/HistoricalNotes/2001-06-20-.NET-Differences.txt
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,30 +0,0 @@
-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 12:32:22 -0500
-From: Vikram Adve <vadve@cs.uiuc.edu>
-To: Chris Lattner <lattner@cs.uiuc.edu>
-Subject: .NET vs. our VM
-
-One significant difference between .NET CLR and our VM is that the CLR
-includes full information about classes and inheritance.  In fact, I just
-sat through the paper on adding templates to .NET CLR, and the speaker
-indicated that the goal seems to be to do simple static compilation (very
-little lowering or optimization).  Also, the templates implementation in CLR
-"relies on dynamic class loading and JIT compilation".
-
-This is an important difference because I think there are some significant
-advantages to have a much lower level VM layer, and do significant static
-analysis and optimization.
-
-I also talked to the lead guy for KAI's C++ compiler (Arch Robison) and he
-said that SGI and other commercial compilers have included options to export
-their *IR* next to the object code (i.e., .il files) and use them for
-link-time code generation.  In fact, he said that the .o file was nearly
-empty and was entirely generated from the .il at link-time.  But he agreed
-that this limited the link-time interprocedural optimization to modules
-compiled by the same compiler, whereas our approach allows us to link and
-optimize modules from multiple different compilers.  (Also, of course, they
-don't do anything for runtime optimization).
-
-All issues to bring up in Related Work.
-
---Vikram
-