[cfe-dev] Target.cpp

[John Thompson]

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.  I'll start looking at those
test failures, hoping it's not too far over my head.  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?
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.

-John

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 mechanism seems a bit out-of-date, as the correct triple for 64-bit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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20090923/0e3dcb4a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: windows_include_paths.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 3331 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20090923/0e3dcb4a/attachment.obj>