[cfe-commits] Windows driver cleanup (or however you want to call it)

[João Matos]

Ping.

Could someone review the MS driver improvements?

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 2:40 AM, João Matos <ripzonetriton at gmail.com> wrote:

> > The logic in the batch file requires the user to run the appropriate
> > batch file. So how would you implement this logic without the user
> > running it?
> >
>
> The only thing the user needs to tell is what platform to generate code
> for, which can be done via the triplet. The driver should then use the
> appropriate registry keys (as the batch files do) to setup the needed
> toolset.
>
> > I was just interpreting the source code, where Win32 is the VS triple
> > and Mingw has its own. Maybe the first one should be called MSVC or
> > something like that, but I digress. How does this feel wrong when
> > triples exist for this very reason, for clang to decide which
> > ToolChain to use?
>
> It feels wrong to me because it's using the OS field, which should select
> between Win32 / Win64 / WinRT, to model between toolsets, like MinGW / MSVC
> / Win SDK. I'd rather have a new toolset flag (-ftoolset=winsdk/mingw/msvc8
> 9 10 11). This would be more flexible IMHO, and would not clutter the
> triplets. We also should think about supporting the new LLVM linker (lld).
>
>  Thoughts?
>
> > Since this is a VS driver it makes sense to follow VS conventions, and
> > this is exactly how the IDE works, it alters the environment before
> > invoking cl.exe. Why should clang work any differently?
>
> Because it doesn't make much sense to follow that aspect of cl.exe if we
> do not have compatibility with any of the flags anyway. That could be
> better done in a separate CL-compatible Clang driver.
>
> --
>
> João Matos
>



-- 
João Matos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20120818/1ab8b140/attachment.html>