ldionne added a comment. In D157283#4614177 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D157283#4614177>, @DmitryPolukhin wrote:
> @ldionne could you please upstream 9edb9a711503d540cf3126c0fde11ce9a0d9a7aa > <https://reviews.llvm.org/rG9edb9a711503d540cf3126c0fde11ce9a0d9a7aa> (I > don't know what it is)? > Alternatively I can figure out what to do with this test (it is just copies > of the same test with minimal modifications) with a hint how it was resolved > to make sure that it worn diverse from want it should be on Darwin. As explained in https://reviews.llvm.org/D89001#4648241, upstream Clang is the way it should be right now. The intent is that we first look along the `clang` binary for headers (that way if you install a custom libc++ it will be picked up), and then we fall back to the SDK version. It's just unfortunate that AppleClang has lagged behind a bit and created some confusion, but I believe the latest release should have the exact same behavior as upstream Clang wrt search paths. The commit mentioned above (`9edb9a711503d540cf3126c0fde11ce9a0d9a7aa`) as actually just making downstream back in sync with upstream. So IMO the correct thing to do is to abandon this change and wait for a new AppleClang that has matching behavior with upstream Clang (it's probably in Xcode 15 RC which came out recently). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D157283/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D157283 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
