[PATCH] Embed Windows version resource information into our exe and dll files

Aaron Ballman aaron.ballman at gmail.com
Thu May 28 07:34:28 PDT 2015

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Greg Bedwell <gregbedwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Aaron,
> Thanks for the reply.
> > The patch goes in the right direction, but we have a lot of other
> > executables that we want this for, right? Such as all the tools that
> > come with llvm? (I realize this is the Clang patch, but I figured this
> > would hit all the .exe files that would be distributed to users and
> > run as part of their toolchains.)
> >
> To be clear the LLVM-side patch sets 'default' LLVM values for the various file properties.  This will apply to all files that inherit from the top-level LLVM CMakelists file unless they are overridden later on by another file in the CMake hierarchy which is what the clang-side patch does.  So as it is with these patches currently, everything in the LLVM tree will get LLVM values except for anything coming from tools/clang which will get the clang default values.  I've attached a small image of the properties windows of a few .exe and .dll files from both clang and LLVM to show the difference (hopefully that's okay on the lists!  the old days of usenet still make we wary of binary attachments.  I tried to make it smaller than some patch attachments though :)).

Ahhh, okay, this makes more sense to me now. The defaults are picked
up by everything that's executable. Thank you for this (the image
helped too)!

> To answer your question from your other reply:
> > What about on Windows building with something like MinGW? Should we do
> > this then as well?
> Ideally yes, although in practice it seems to be much harder as the MinGW CMake generator doesn't seem to support this out of the box from my experimentation.  I'm happy to try and make it work too but I'd rather address it in a separate commit later if that's okay.  Should I add a TODO comment to reflect this?

I think having a TODO would be great, yes.

> Otherwise, do these look ready to commit?

Yes, I think they do.

Thank you!


More information about the llvm-commits mailing list