[cfe-dev] Target.cpp

Thu Sep 24 18:55:42 PDT 2009

Daniel,

> Unless someone objects, I think the MSVC parts are worth putting it.
I'm not sure about the Cygwin/MinGW changes, were these intentional?
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.

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.

-John
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 1:10 PM, John Thompson
> <john.thompson.jtsoftware at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> The way I am running them now is using the "clang-test" project in the
> project files. That should be the "official" way for MSVC (from a
> CMake build), and ideally will "just work" one day.
>
> In fact, this is now working in buildbot too!
>  http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/waterfall
> The buildbot of course has a higher test failure count because it
> doesn't get my local patches. The current count is 73 after the fixes
> for count/not which just went in.
>
> >  I'll start looking at those test failures, hoping it's not too far over
> my head.
>
> I suspect a number of the issues are trivial things regarding to the
> use of the debug STL library, which is much pickier on Windows. For
> example, all the static analyzer tests were failing due to code like
> '&*t.end()'. Then there is a group of tests that use /dev/null, I will
> probably fix this in 'lit'. Finally there are issues with standard
> include files not being usable. Those are the three major classes of
> failures I am aware of.
>
> >  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?
>
> For now, anything is better than nothing. Using the version the tools
> was built with would be a fine start I guess, and perhaps closer to
> what the user would want.
>
> > 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.
>
> Unless someone objects, I think the MSVC parts are worth putting it.
> I'm not sure about the Cygwin/MinGW changes, were these intentional?
>
>  - Daniel
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cfe-dev mailing list
> > cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> >
> >
>

-- 
John Thompson
John.Thompson.JTSoftware at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20090924/d1ec0f9a/attachment.html>