[PATCH] D146165: docs: add some documentation on Windows SDK search

[Hans Wennborg via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

hans accepted this revision.
hans added inline comments.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.


================
Comment at: clang/docs/UsersManual.rst:4504
+programs against the Windows system packages.  Underlying the Windows SDK is the
+UCRT, the universal C runtime.
+
----------------
Optionally, If you wanted to be ultra pedagogical, this paragraph could perhaps list an example library/header as part of explaining the SDK, UCRT, and tools.


================
Comment at: clang/docs/UsersManual.rst:4537
+
+    TODO: This is not yet implemented.
+
----------------
compnerd wrote:
> hans wrote:
> > But isn't this how clang-cl finds stuff when running in a "Visual Studio Command Prompt" / setenv / vcvars or whatever it's called these days?
> > 
> > I think this would be the most common case for people building from the command line, and I'd suggest perhaps starting the list with this one (I realize they're currently sorted by precedence, but sorting by most common first would also be valid I think).
> > But isn't this how clang-cl finds stuff when running in a "Visual Studio Command Prompt" / setenv / vcvars or whatever it's called these days?
> 
> No, it isn't, because this is the Windows SDK portion.  The environment variable is for the Visual C++ tools only, the environment based SDK lookup is unimplemented.
> 
> Something something complexity something.
> 
> This is part of why I structured this the way as I have.  There are two parts of the lookup here, the part dealing with the SDK and the part dealing with the VC++ tools.  Now, it could be argued that this is finer point of detail that most will not care about, and I am concerned that is very much true, but the reality is that there is a bunch of complexity in the lookup and the value in documenting the behaviour is that we can easily lookup how to control the behaviour of the driver.
> 
> > I think this would be the most common case for people building from the command line, and I'd suggest perhaps starting the list with this one (I realize they're currently sorted by precedence, but sorting by most common first would also be valid I think).
> 
> I think that common behaviour should be listed in prose.  If someone has more than one mechanism in the command line, the resulting behaviour would not match the written one and that can lead to confusion.
> No, it isn't, because this is the Windows SDK portion.

Oh, I see. I clearly missed that detail :)

> I think that common behaviour should be listed in prose.

Fair enough.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D146165/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D146165