[PATCH] Explicitly specify CMake MSVC stack size

[Greg_Bedwell at sn.scee.net]

> LGTM.

Thanks.  Please could you commit for me?  I don't have access yet.

-Greg

Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote on 24/09/2013 
22:15:42:

> From: Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com>
> To: Greg_Bedwell at sn.scee.net
> Cc: llvm cfe <cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu>, llvm-commits <llvm-
> commits at cs.uiuc.edu>
> Date: 24/09/2013 22:15
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Explicitly specify CMake MSVC stack size
> 
> On 24 September 2013 17:13,  <Greg_Bedwell at sn.scee.net> wrote:
> > Thanks for looking at this!
> >
> >> This changes the stack of every tool, not just clang, right?
> >
> > Yes and no depending on how you look at it.  It increases the stack 
size
> > for every tool for anybody that is already using CMake 2.8.11, but it
> > prevents the stack size from changing for anybody in future that is 
still
> > using a previous version.  According to cmake.org, 2.8.11 was released 
in
> > May 2013, so I'm guessing that a lot of people may not have had reason 
to
> > update yet.  The only reason I updated was because the previous 
version I
> > was using was too old for compiler-rt which I wanted to mess around 
with.
> >
> >>Is it possible to change it just for clang?
> >>
> >
> > It's true that the only place I've actually observed us actually 
requiring
> > 10MB of stack is in clang.exe, but then I have more exhaustive tests 
for
> > clang.exe than any other tool :).  The primary motivation here is to 
avoid
> > the situation where two people building the exact same revision with
> > exactly the same MSVC version get different results with one of the 
tools
> > depending on the version of CMake they happen to have installed.  It 
just
> > feels like it's a horrible day of debugging for someone later on down 
the
> > line.
> >
> > My idea was that we apply this to every tool for now in order to 
preserve
> > previous behaviour, and then at the point where we mandate a version 
of
> > CMake that supports CMAKE_CXX_STACK_SIZE we can find more appropriate
> > values for each tool (most likely, the default 1MB I'll concede for 
tools
> > other than clang).  This will then guarantee that anyone trying to 
hunt
> > down any strange regressions can at least track it down to a single
> > revision that changed the stack size.
> >
> > Does this sound like a reasonable approach?
> 
> I think so.
> 
> LGTM.
> 
> Cheers,
> Rafael


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended 
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. 
If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster at scee.net
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been checked for 
all known viruses.
Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Limited
Registered Office: 10 Great Marlborough Street, London W1F 7LP, United 
Kingdom
Registered in England: 3277793
**********************************************************************

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail