[cfe-dev] Target.cpp

Fri Oct 16 18:41:34 PDT 2009

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 6:55 PM, John Thompson
<john.thompson.jtsoftware at gmail.com> wrote:
> Daniel,
>
>> Unless someone objects, I think the MSVC parts are worth putting it.
> I'm not sure about the Cygwin/MinGW changes, were these intentional?
> Oh, I see there are problems there, as I deleted the lines picking up the
> C++ headers.  This is problematic, with the include paths having compiler
> version numbers.
>
> I'm actually at gcc 4.4.0 in MinGW (which doesn't work for me, if you saw
> the email I just posted).  Should I install 4.3.0 and put back the deleted
> paths?  Or should we move to 4.4.0 and change the paths accordingly?  I'll
> wait to hear before I do anything.

For now I think its ok to have both.

 - Daniel

> -John
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 1:10 PM, John Thompson
>> <john.thompson.jtsoftware at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Daniel,
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> >> By the way, I still don't have all my local patches in for testing on
>> > Windows (there are basically 3, one to add count + not to
>> > test/Scripts, one to add my local search headers, and one to hack
>> > around stdint.h), but the current number of test failures is ~60,
>> > which isn't too bad. A lot of the remaining ones are STL iterator
>> > pickyness which should be easy to eliminate if someone sits down to
>> > work through them.
>>
>> > I still have the local patches you gave me before, which I was using,
>> > somewhat successfully, though the three of use trying the tests saw some
>> > different results.  But that was a couple months ago, with me being
>> > pulled
>> > onto other projects and vacation, so I'll see about running them again,
>> > if I
>> > can figure out how I was running them before.
>>
>> The way I am running them now is using the "clang-test" project in the
>> project files. That should be the "official" way for MSVC (from a
>> CMake build), and ideally will "just work" one day.
>>
>> In fact, this is now working in buildbot too!
>>  http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/waterfall
>> The buildbot of course has a higher test failure count because it
>> doesn't get my local patches. The current count is 73 after the fixes
>> for count/not which just went in.
>>
>> >  I'll start looking at those test failures, hoping it's not too far over
>> > my head.
>>
>> I suspect a number of the issues are trivial things regarding to the
>> use of the debug STL library, which is much pickier on Windows. For
>> example, all the static analyzer tests were failing due to code like
>> '&*t.end()'. Then there is a group of tests that use /dev/null, I will
>> probably fix this in 'lit'. Finally there are issues with standard
>> include files not being usable. Those are the three major classes of
>> failures I am aware of.
>>
>> >  I do look forward to
>> > having the full solution for running the tests.
>>
>> >> Also, what happened with your patch to add MSVC search paths in a more
>> > principled fashion? In my fuzzy memory I thought it had gone in, but I
>> > didn't actually see it in the source.
>> > Regarding the include path patch, it was kind of a hack job, mainly to
>> > facilitate our development.  I think you or someone raised some
>> > objection
>> > about one part where when both vc80 and c90 are present (both the
>> > VS80COMNTOOLS and VS90COMNTOOLS environment variables are set) and I
>> > used
>> > the one Clang was built with.  I kind of left it at that.
>> >
>> > How do you think I should handle this case?  Just use whichever is the
>> > later
>> > VS release?
>>
>> For now, anything is better than nothing. Using the version the tools
>> was built with would be a fine start I guess, and perhaps closer to
>> what the user would want.
>>
>> > I've enclosed a refreshed patch, in case you want to see it again.  It
>> > still
>> > has some hard-coded paths like before, which is also why it's kind of
>> > hackish.
>>
>> Unless someone objects, I think the MSVC parts are worth putting it.
>> I'm not sure about the Cygwin/MinGW changes, were these intentional?
>>
>>  - Daniel
>>
>> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 12:34 AM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi John,
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the refactoring, it looks good to me, I applied as r82621.
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:21 PM, John Thompson
>> >> <john.thompson.jtsoftware at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Hi Daniel,
>> >> > Sorry for the duplicate email, I keep forgetting to pay attention to
>> >> > the
>> >> > return address.
>> >> > I've redone the patch without the Triple changes.  The current triple
>> >> > mechanism seems a bit out-of-date, as the correct triple for 64-bit
>> >> > Windows
>> >> > appears to be "x86_64-pc-win32", but we can leave that for whoever
>> >> > owns
>> >> > it.
>> >>
>> >> Ok.
>> >>
>> >> > At some point, if Clang wants to be it's own environment on Windows,
>> >> > we'll
>> >> > probably have to revise this a bit to be able to do something other
>> >> > than
>> >> > default to Visual Studio for the "win32" OS-type, but this is
>> >> > probably
>> >> > good
>> >> > enough for now.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, we will probably want to go a long time before we care about
>> >> this. Adoption means being compatible with the existing environment,
>> >> as painful as it may be.
>> >>
>> >> > Thanks for dealing with this for me.
>> >> >
>> >> > -John
>> >> >
>> >> > P.S.  I added an empty define for __declspec.  Is this all that's
>> >> > needed?
>> >>
>> >> Dunno...
>> >>
>> >> By the way, I still don't have all my local patches in for testing on
>> >> Windows (there are basically 3, one to add count + not to
>> >> test/Scripts, one to add my local search headers, and one to hack
>> >> around stdint.h), but the current number of test failures is ~60,
>> >> which isn't too bad. A lot of the remaining ones are STL iterator
>> >> pickyness which should be easy to eliminate if someone sits down to
>> >> work through them.
>> >>
>> >> Also, what happened with your patch to add MSVC search paths in a more
>> >> principled fashion? In my fuzzy memory I thought it had gone in, but I
>> >> didn't actually see it in the source.
>> >>
>> >>  - Daniel
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > John Thompson
>> > John.Thompson.JTSoftware at gmail.com
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > cfe-dev mailing list
>> > cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
>> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
> --
> John Thompson
> John.Thompson.JTSoftware at gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
>