mstorsjo added a comment. In D68980#1710018 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D68980#1710018>, @stella.stamenova wrote:
> In D68980#1709967 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D68980#1709967>, @mstorsjo wrote: > > > In D68980#1709931 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D68980#1709931>, @labath wrote: > > > > > In D68980#1709884 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D68980#1709884>, > > > @stella.stamenova wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > Was this during a standalone lldb build? In a non-standalone build, lit > > > should definitely prefer the just-built clang/lld (and if it doesn't, it > > > should be fixed to do that). The situation is more complicated for a > > > standalone build because the clang binary is sort of out of our control. > > > But, in this case, I don't see how having build.py around can help, > > > because the information about which clang to use has to come externally > > > anyway... > > > > > > How do tests like test/Shell/Register/x86*.test work in such standalone > > builds then? They use lines like these: > > > > # XFAIL: system-windows > > # REQUIRES: native && target-x86_64 > > # RUN: %clangxx -fomit-frame-pointer %p/Inputs/x86-64-gp-read.cpp -o %t > > # RUN: %lldb -b -s %s %t | FileCheck %s > > > > > > (The XFAIL for system-windows, at least in this test, when I tried it out, > > seemed to relate to the fact that `register read --all` on windows didn't > > include all the 32 bit subregisters.) > > > > If tests already can use such constrcuts, I don't see why we couldn't use > > `# RUN: %clang_cl ..`, as lit sets up `%clang_cl` in the same way as > > `%clangxx`. > > > %clang_cl is where we started before we had build.py. It was over a year ago, > so it's possible things have improved. Possible, but I'm getting the feeling that there's cases that at least I'm overlooking, so I think it might be safer to just add a `--target` option to build.py. Or maybe make it accept an actual architecture name to `--arch`, in addition to 32/64/host? For non-clang-cl cases, it should only allow 32/64/host, but for clang-cl it could accept e.g. `i386`. How does that sound to you? 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
