compnerd added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/Driver/MSVCToolChain.cpp:478
@@ +477,3 @@
+ // toolset, if it exists.
+ if (llvm::sys::fs::exists(X64BinDir)) {
+path = X64BinDir.str();
As per the consensus, this should be:
if (llvm::sys::getProcessTripl
DaveBartolomeo updated this revision to Diff 65633.
DaveBartolomeo added a comment.
Herald added a subscriber: samparker.
Updated the selection algorithm based on review feedback. Now, if clang.exe
itself is x64-hosted, we'll look for the x64-hosted MSVC toolset if it exists.
If clang.exe is not
DaveBartolomeo added a comment.
Just to make sure I'm clear on the consensus, the new plan is:
If clang.exe is x64-hosted and an x64-hosted MSVC toolchain is available, use
the x64-hosted MSVC toolchain. Otherwise, use the x86-hosted MSVC toolchain.
Right?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22426
_
compnerd requested changes to this revision.
compnerd added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
@rnk, okay, that seems reasonable enough. Although, we should check to ensure
that the x64 toolchain is available and make a decision on that.
BTW, seems that I had missed the p
rnk added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D22426#486129, @DaveBartolomeo wrote:
> One reasonable solution would be to choose the toolset that is hosted on the
> same architecture as the host of clang.exe (e.g. x64-hosted Clang looks for
> x64-hosted MSVC). If this sounds good, I can make
majnemer added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D22426#486605, @compnerd wrote:
> I was worried about the OOM situation with the 32-bit toolchain. As long as
> there is a way to get to the 64-bit version, I don't think that it matters
> too much that we default to x86. It sounds like ev
compnerd added a comment.
I was worried about the OOM situation with the 32-bit toolchain. As long as
there is a way to get to the 64-bit version, I don't think that it matters too
much that we default to x86. It sounds like even then, its not been a concern?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22426
DaveBartolomeo added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D22426#486100, @compnerd wrote:
> I imagine that at this point, most usage is still based around the x86
> toolchain rather than x64 (I didnt even notice the x64 tools until recently).
> That is, any reason that we shouldnt be using x
compnerd added a subscriber: compnerd.
compnerd accepted this revision.
compnerd added a reviewer: compnerd.
compnerd added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
I imagine that at this point, most usage is still based around the x86
toolchain rather than x64 (I didnt even no
