stella.stamenova added a comment. In D68980#1709866 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D68980#1709866>, @labath wrote:
> In D68980#1709830 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D68980#1709830>, > @stella.stamenova wrote: > > > I suspect that using clang-cl directly will not work though - the script > > does a lot of the setup needed to run clang-cl correctly today (previously > > the environment for clang-cl was not setup correctly and the tests either > > didn't pass or passed for the wrong reasons, so using build.py has been a > > huge improvement). > > > Can you elaborate on what kind of setup do you have in mind here? Bear in > mind that here we are only talking about tests that do not use any system > libraries or headers, and which already run fine on a linux system which does > not have any windows-specific stuff installed. With those restrictions, I > don't see what can be possibly gained from using build.py. The only thing I > can see it possibly doing is to clear some environment variables which might > otherwise be present and confuse clang-cl. However, that's something that can > be easily done in lit. The two things that come to mind are the path to clang-cl (which is sometimes a clang build and sometimes installed on the system as part of a VS installation or an LLVM installation) as well as the path to the linker when it is needed. This is most often an issue in the case of a VS install - I don't remember all the details any more, but I believe that before Zach added the script, we were often picking up the wrong clang-cl and ending up not being able to compile the tests at all. Repository: rLLDB LLDB CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D68980/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D68980 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
