phosek added a comment. In D144603#4165569 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D144603#4165569>, @fangism wrote:
> In D144603#4163751 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D144603#4163751>, @phosek wrote: > >> In D144603#4162974 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D144603#4162974>, @haowei wrote: >> >>> I think remove the compiler launcher from default pass through flags are >>> fine. What about the using compiler launcher in runtime builds? I don't >>> think we should read `CLANG_BOOTSTRAP_PASSTHROUGH` to determine if we >>> should pass through compiler launcher flags. >> >> I'd suggest a similar approach, that is remove `C_COMPILER_LAUNCHER` and >> `CXX_COMPILER_LAUNCHER` from the default passthrough list and provide a new >> `LLVM_EXTERNAL_PROJECT_PASSTHROUGH` variable. > > Will the PASSTHROUGH approach let us choose a //different// LAUNCHER for the > external projects? For example, we could still distribute those compiles, > albeit without expecting any caching. No, we would need a different option for that. I'd start with the passthrough approach which is generic and then look into the possibility of overriding the launcher for subprojects if there's a compelling use case. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D144603/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D144603 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
