[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D71306: [RFC] Change how we deal with optional dependencies

[Alex Langford via Phabricator via lldb-commits]

xiaobai added a comment.

In D71306#1779379 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71306#1779379>, @labath wrote:

> In D71306#1778472 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71306#1778472>, @xiaobai wrote:
>
> > I personally prefer the third approach. To make sure I understand correctly, I'll write it in my own words so you can correct me if I misunderstood.
> >  Try to find the dependency, and if we find it then use it. If not, then we can print out something like "Didn't find `DEPENDENCY`" and continue on our merry way. If the user overwrites the values and something goes wrong, send a fatal error and tell them that what the value they set isn't going to work without further work (e.g. explicitly enable python support but didn't find python? tell the user that you couldn't find python and maybe suggest setting some other CMake variables to help CMake find python).
>
>
> How exactly does this "overwriting" work? Could you point me to the code that does this? I don't remember seeing anything like this, but the llvm build is not entirely consistent either, so it's possible we're looking at different things...


By overwrite, I meant that the user would explicitly set the value to `ON`. In the terms you used, this would be `FORCE_ON`.


Repository:
  rLLDB LLDB

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D71306/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D71306