<div>Here's a revised patch for the Windows include paths, putting back the deleted lines for MinGW and Cygwin with a little revision. Note that I can't test the MinGW and Cygwin stuff, because I can't get those SKUs to build.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Also, another issue I brought up before but only remembered recently was that the old Python test runner wasn't passing through the environment, so the Visual Studio environment variables (and C_INCLUDE_PATH) can't be seen. I think you need to explicitly pass them through, but I wasn't sure how to do it. Is this still an issue with the new script?<br>
</div>
<div>-John<br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 6:55 PM, John Thompson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:john.thompson.jtsoftware@gmail.com">john.thompson.jtsoftware@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div>Daniel,</div>
<div class="im">
<div> </div>
<div>> Unless someone objects, I think the MSVC parts are worth putting it.<br>I'm not sure about the Cygwin/MinGW changes, were these intentional?<br></div></div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div><font color="#888888">
<div>-John<br></div></font>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Daniel Dunbar <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:daniel@zuster.org" target="_blank">daniel@zuster.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 1:10 PM, John Thompson<br>
<div><<a href="mailto:john.thompson.jtsoftware@gmail.com" target="_blank">john.thompson.jtsoftware@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> Hi Daniel,<br>><br></div>
<div>> Thanks.<br>><br>>> By the way, I still don't have all my local patches in for testing on<br>> Windows (there are basically 3, one to add count + not to<br>> test/Scripts, one to add my local search headers, and one to hack<br>
> around stdint.h), but the current number of test failures is ~60,<br>> which isn't too bad. A lot of the remaining ones are STL iterator<br>> pickyness which should be easy to eliminate if someone sits down to<br>
> work through them.<br><br>> I still have the local patches you gave me before, which I was using,<br>> somewhat successfully, though the three of use trying the tests saw some<br>> different results. But that was a couple months ago, with me being pulled<br>
> onto other projects and vacation, so I'll see about running them again, if I<br>> can figure out how I was running them before.<br><br></div>The way I am running them now is using the "clang-test" project in the<br>
project files. That should be the "official" way for MSVC (from a<br>CMake build), and ideally will "just work" one day.<br><br>In fact, this is now working in buildbot too!<br> <a href="http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/waterfall" target="_blank">http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/waterfall</a><br>
The buildbot of course has a higher test failure count because it<br>doesn't get my local patches. The current count is 73 after the fixes<br>for count/not which just went in.<br>
<div><br>> I'll start looking at those test failures, hoping it's not too far over my head.<br><br></div>I suspect a number of the issues are trivial things regarding to the<br>use of the debug STL library, which is much pickier on Windows. For<br>
example, all the static analyzer tests were failing due to code like<br>'&*t.end()'. Then there is a group of tests that use /dev/null, I will<br>probably fix this in 'lit'. Finally there are issues with standard<br>
include files not being usable. Those are the three major classes of<br>failures I am aware of.<br>
<div><br>> I do look forward to<br>> having the full solution for running the tests.<br><br>>> Also, what happened with your patch to add MSVC search paths in a more<br>> principled fashion? In my fuzzy memory I thought it had gone in, but I<br>
> didn't actually see it in the source.<br>> Regarding the include path patch, it was kind of a hack job, mainly to<br>> facilitate our development. I think you or someone raised some objection<br>> about one part where when both vc80 and c90 are present (both the<br>
> VS80COMNTOOLS and VS90COMNTOOLS environment variables are set) and I used<br>> the one Clang was built with. I kind of left it at that.<br>><br>> How do you think I should handle this case? Just use whichever is the later<br>
> VS release?<br><br></div>For now, anything is better than nothing. Using the version the tools<br>was built with would be a fine start I guess, and perhaps closer to<br>what the user would want.<br>
<div><br>> I've enclosed a refreshed patch, in case you want to see it again. It still<br>> has some hard-coded paths like before, which is also why it's kind of<br>> hackish.<br><br></div>Unless someone objects, I think the MSVC parts are worth putting it.<br>
I'm not sure about the Cygwin/MinGW changes, were these intentional?<br><br> - Daniel<br>
<div>
<div></div>
<div><br>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 12:34 AM, Daniel Dunbar <<a href="mailto:daniel@zuster.org" target="_blank">daniel@zuster.org</a>> wrote:<br>>><br>>> Hi John,<br>>><br>>> Thanks for the refactoring, it looks good to me, I applied as r82621.<br>
>><br>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:21 PM, John Thompson<br>>> <<a href="mailto:john.thompson.jtsoftware@gmail.com" target="_blank">john.thompson.jtsoftware@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>>> > Hi Daniel,<br>
>> > Sorry for the duplicate email, I keep forgetting to pay attention to the<br>>> > return address.<br>>> > I've redone the patch without the Triple changes. The current triple<br>>> > mechanism seems a bit out-of-date, as the correct triple for 64-bit<br>
>> > Windows<br>>> > appears to be "x86_64-pc-win32", but we can leave that for whoever owns<br>>> > it.<br>>><br>>> Ok.<br>>><br>>> > At some point, if Clang wants to be it's own environment on Windows,<br>
>> > we'll<br>>> > probably have to revise this a bit to be able to do something other than<br>>> > default to Visual Studio for the "win32" OS-type, but this is probably<br>>> > good<br>
>> > enough for now.<br>>><br>>> Yeah, we will probably want to go a long time before we care about<br>>> this. Adoption means being compatible with the existing environment,<br>>> as painful as it may be.<br>
>><br>>> > Thanks for dealing with this for me.<br>>> ><br>>> > -John<br>>> ><br>>> > P.S. I added an empty define for __declspec. Is this all that's<br>>> > needed?<br>
>><br>>> Dunno...<br>>><br>>> By the way, I still don't have all my local patches in for testing on<br>>> Windows (there are basically 3, one to add count + not to<br>>> test/Scripts, one to add my local search headers, and one to hack<br>
>> around stdint.h), but the current number of test failures is ~60,<br>>> which isn't too bad. A lot of the remaining ones are STL iterator<br>>> pickyness which should be easy to eliminate if someone sits down to<br>
>> work through them.<br>>><br>>> Also, what happened with your patch to add MSVC search paths in a more<br>>> principled fashion? In my fuzzy memory I thought it had gone in, but I<br>>> didn't actually see it in the source.<br>
>><br>>> - Daniel<br>><br>><br>><br>> --<br>> John Thompson<br>> <a href="mailto:John.Thompson.JTSoftware@gmail.com" target="_blank">John.Thompson.JTSoftware@gmail.com</a><br>><br>><br>
</div></div>> _______________________________________________<br>> cfe-dev mailing list<br>> <a href="mailto:cfe-dev@cs.uiuc.edu" target="_blank">cfe-dev@cs.uiuc.edu</a><br>> <a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev</a><br>
><br>><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all">
<div></div><br></div></div>-- <br>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5">John Thompson<br><a href="mailto:John.Thompson.JTSoftware@gmail.com" target="_blank">John.Thompson.JTSoftware@gmail.com</a><br><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all">
<div></div><br>-- <br>John Thompson<br><a href="mailto:John.Thompson.JTSoftware@gmail.com">John.Thompson.JTSoftware@gmail.com</a><br><br>