tra added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Driver/ToolChains/Clang.cpp:1230
+ llvm::sys::path::append(P, "llvm-libc");
+ CmdArgs.push_back("-c-isystem");
+ CmdArgs.push_back(Args.MakeArgString(P));
----------------
Ensuring the right include order will be tricky. Interaction between the
headers provided by llvm-libc vs the system headers will be interesting if we
end up mixing the headers. It may be less problematic compared to the C++
standard library, but I doubt that mixing two implementations would work well
here, either.
So, the major question I have -- does adding include path here guarantees that
we're not picking up the host headers? I do not see any changes that would
exclude system headers from include paths.
If we do have include paths leading to both llvm-libc and the host headers,
what's expected to happen if user code ends up including a header that's not
present in llvm-libc? Is that possible?
================
Comment at: clang/test/Driver/gpu-libc-headers.c:14
+// RUN: FileCheck %s --check-prefix=CHECK-HEADERS
+// CHECK-HEADERS: "-cc1"{{.*}}"-c-isystem" "{{.*}}include/llvm-libc"
+
----------------
I think here we want to test for not just the presence of `include/llvm-libc`,
but also that it's in the correct position relative to other include paths.
We may want something similar to what we have in
clang/test/Driver/hip-include-path.hip
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D146973/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D146973
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
