dmajor added a comment.
> Anyway, I'm just venting. If rnk@ wants to lgtm this, I'm fine.
@rnk, any objection to this patch?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D39994
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mail
zturner added a comment.
I'm not suuuper opposed, but at the same time if this code is bothering people
(and it is, consistently), I don't changing the requirements from "confusing
rule A" to "confusing rule B" is going to solve the long term burden that
people keep running into.
Not asking yo
hans added a comment.
I think the patch is fine, but Zach should probably sign off on it.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D39994
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
rnk added a comment.
I haven't dug into this code to really understand if this is right and won't
change our version detection logic, but yes, broadly I believe we should just
consult PATH, find a cl.exe, and check its version. I'd like to reduce this
path validation to a minimum.
https://rev
dmajor created this revision.
Herald added subscribers: kristof.beyls, aemerson.
Mozilla's build machines are currently applying this patch locally, but I
thought I'd offer it upstream because it should be pretty harmless.
clang-cl has some sanity checks to make sure that the cl.exe it finds is
