[PATCH] D42762: Rewrite the VS Integration Scripts

[Zachary Turner via llvm-commits]

It’s a compiler generated pdb, /Zi means “all compiler processes should
write to the same pdb”, whereas /Z7 means “put the debug info in the object
files instead”. If the user does a clean build the file will get deleted
and there won’t even be anything to touch. The file name comes from another
flag (/Fo or /Fd, can’t remember) which msbuild defaults to vc$(ToolsetName)
On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 8:36 AM Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote:

> Yes, but I'd like to understand exactly why. Where does the name
> vc140.pdb come from? What is supposed to go into this file? Maybe
> clang-cl should touch it when invoked with /Zi?
>
> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
> > Symptom: when /Zi is selected, VS always rebuilds all source files, even
> if
> > just 1 (possibly even none) have changed.
> >
> > Fix: Change /Zi to /Z7 in the UI
> >
> > More details here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36140
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 8:12 AM Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 4:40 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 6:23 AM Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> (Your reply didn't go to Phabricator, so re-adding folks subscribed
> >> >> there.)
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 9:08 PM, Zachary Turner via llvm-commits
> >> >> <llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >> >> > I'm kind of imagining this world where we have one VS Integration
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > works
> >> >> > no matter what version of LLVM you have.  The nice thing about this
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > it allows it to work with hermetic toolchains, older versions of
> LLVM
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > may already be installed on a user's machine, local dev builds of
> >> >> > LLVM,
> >> >> > etc.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm on board with this. It seems useful especially for the case where
> >> >> the developer may have multiple LLVM toolchains installed and want to
> >> >> point at a specific one. It would be nice if we could still trigger
> >> >> the installation of the toolset when installing the LLVM toolchain
> >> >> though.
> >> >>
> >> >> But for the integration to work regardless of LLVM version, I don't
> >> >> think the integration can bake in assumptions about what flags
> >> >> clang-cl supports and re-map them etc. The set of flags supported by
> >> >> clang-cl and how they're handled changes frequently.
> >> >>
> >> >> I like the idea of a VS integration that's LLVM-version independent
> --
> >> >> the current one is almost that except for the baked in version number
> >> >> -- but for it to work, I think it has to be really simple, basically
> >> >> just pointing MSVC at clang-cl.exe and nothing more.
> >> >
> >> > I’ve already mentioned at least one case whereas this is impossible
> (/Zi
> >> > vs
> >> > /Z7), and given that there are thousands of lines of msbuild logic
> that
> >> > are
> >> > running and processing these options before they make it to clang-cl,
> >> > I’m
> >> > certain there are more that we don’t yet know about.
> >>
> >> I'd like to understand the /Zi vs /Z7 thing better. Can you ELI5 the
> >> problem?
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Simple is nice, I don’t disagree with that, but not at the expense of
> >> > user
> >> > experience.  i still don’t think there’s any maintenance issues here
> >> > though.
> >> > I think the current version here could probably sit for 5+ years and
> >> > never
> >> > need to be touched, continuing to work both with future VS versions
> and
> >> > future clang-cl versions unmodified.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > The only maintenance burden I can think of is one where we remove
> or
> >> >> > add
> >> >> > flags in clang-cl, which doesn't happen very often, if ever.
> >> >>
> >> >> It puzzles me that you think we rarely or ever change the flags
> >> >> clang-cl supports or how they're handled. In my experience, the flags
> >> >> change every release.
> >> >>
> >> >> >  Any flag that
> >> >> > is added to MSVC doesn't require any action from us.
> >> >>
> >> >> Depends on the flag, no?
> >> >
> >> > Not really.  Any flag that msvc adds, assuming we don’t update this
> >> > file,
> >> > gets passed through to clang-cl which is what you’re proposing i do
> with
> >> > all
> >> > options anyway.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > I plan to expose a UI for optimizations and warning, so I could
> see a
> >> >> > maintenace burden when we add new -W or -f flags that are not
> exposed
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > UI.  But those can still be specified via additional compiler
> flags.
> >> >> > And
> >> >> > the maintenance burden is actually less than coupling it to the
> >> >> > installed
> >> >> > toolchain because we can do it at our leisure, rather than being
> >> >> > pressed
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > get it done by a release.
> >> >>
> >> >> But you're saying that the toolset should be independent of the LLVM
> >> >> version? If we add a -Wfoobar flag in Clang x.y.z and want to expose
> >> >> that in your UI, that UI then needs to be conditional on what version
> >> >> of Clang it's targeting. Same thing if we remove -Wquux in another
> >> >> Clang version. This sounds like a maintenance nightmare to me.
> >> >
> >> > If we do nothing, any added -W options are still available via
> >> > Additional
> >> > Compiler Flags.   So as with all the other custom logic in the msbuild
> >> > files, we’re still not obligated to maintain that, and it will still
> >> > continue to work fine
> >> >
> >> > For options that we remove, sure, we should update the file.  One way
> to
> >> > handle this would be to add a new version of clang-cl.xml every
> release,
> >> > and
> >> > conditionally include the proper xml file.  How frequently do we
> remove
> >> > warnings though?  Doing so would cause people’s builds to break
> because
> >> > they’d be passing unrecognized options, so I suspect it’s almost
> never.
> >> >
> >> > Of all the things though, this is the one that I think it’s most
> >> > important
> >> > to accept the maintenance burden of.  This is the difference between
> “we
> >> > put
> >> > the minimum amount of work possible into getting this working so we
> >> > could do
> >> > other things” and “we care about this, we made it as easy as possible
> to
> >> > use, we designed it with VS users in mind”.  As someone who used VS
> >> > through
> >> > the UI exclusively for over 15 years, there’s going to be a huge
> >> > difference
> >> > between providing this feature and not providing it.
> >> >
> >> > I *still* don’t see the maintenance burden as being high though.  We
> can
> >> > release a new clang-cl.xml like every 2-3 years and it would take all
> of
> >> > 30
> >> > minutes to put it together and get it on the marketplace.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > One thing I could maybe do to lower the maintenance burden a little
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > try to have some better logic for detecting the clang version.  We
> >> >> > were
> >> >> > already using the registry before anyway to find the installed
> LLVM,
> >> >> > maybe
> >> >> > there's a way for me to just figure out the version without the
> >> >> > additional
> >> >> > registry value.  I'll have to look into that though.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 11:09 AM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com
> >
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:48 AM Hans Wennborg via Phabricator
> >> >> >> <reviews at reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> hans added inline comments.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> ================
> >> >> >>> Comment at: llvm/tools/msbuild/Clang.Cpp.Common.props:41
> >> >> >>> +
> >> >> >>> +    <!-- The registry key may not be set if it's an old
> installer,
> >> >> >>> try
> >> >> >>> the newest version that exists -->
> >> >> >>> +    <LLVMVersion Condition="'$(LLVMVersion)' == '' and
> >> >> >>> Exists('$(LLVMInstallDir)\lib\clang\7.0.0')">7.0.0</LLVMVersion>
> >> >> >>> ----------------
> >> >> >>> zturner wrote:
> >> >> >>> > hans wrote:
> >> >> >>> > > As I mentioned before, separating the toolset config from the
> >> >> >>> > > actual
> >> >> >>> > > toolchain installation makes me a little nervous.
> >> >> >>> > >
> >> >> >>> > > But if we're doing it, the version checks below should
> probably
> >> >> >>> > > include the .1 versions too, i.e. at least 5.0.1 and 6.0.1.
> >> >> >>> > Unless we're going to release the full thing including the
> >> >> >>> > compiler,
> >> >> >>> > linker, etc through the marketplace I don't see an alternative.
> >> >> >>> > In
> >> >> >>> > any
> >> >> >>> > case, I actually think this it's preferable this way.  There's
> >> >> >>> > nothing
> >> >> >>> > really about the two that benefits from having them coupled
> >> >> >>> > together, as far
> >> >> >>> > as I can see.   I'm willing to be convinced though, if we can
> >> >> >>> > figure
> >> >> >>> > out how
> >> >> >>> > to to do it so that we can still ship it on the marketplace.
> >> >> >>> "There's nothing really about the two that benefits from having
> >> >> >>> them
> >> >> >>> coupled together,"
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> The toolset needs to know at least where to find the toolchain
> and
> >> >> >>> how
> >> >> >>> to
> >> >> >>> invoke it. If we decouple them, there needs to be an interface
> >> >> >>> between
> >> >> >>> them
> >> >> >>> that can't change: in this case the LLVM path and version number
> in
> >> >> >>> the
> >> >> >>> registry.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Has that ever changed?  Doesn’t seem too onerous, using the
> registry
> >> >> >> is
> >> >> >> the windows way anyway, if anything this feels like the proper
> way.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> But at the same time you're baking in all this logic in the
> toolset
> >> >> >>> about
> >> >> >>> how to invoke the toolchain, what flags are supported, etc. Those
> >> >> >>> things are
> >> >> >>> strongly dependent on the toolchain, which in this de-coupled
> world
> >> >> >>> seems
> >> >> >>> problematic. It seems like you're actually making the coupling
> >> >> >>> tighter
> >> >> >>> in
> >> >> >>> that way, except you still want to ship the two parts separately.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Are there restrictions in the marketplace about how big a vsix
> can
> >> >> >>> be?
> >> >> >>> Because if not, I think we could just package up
> >> >> >>> clang+headers+runtime
> >> >> >>> into
> >> >> >>> a vsix and ship the whole thing, and maybe that would be the best
> >> >> >>> thing.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> An installer is very large though, and even if it’s allowed it’s
> >> >> >> kind
> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> obnoxious to have to download a large amount of stuff if only one
> >> >> >> thing
> >> >> >> changes.  Being able to push changes to the Integration
> >> >> >> independently
> >> >> >> of an
> >> >> >> llvm release seems like a feature to me.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>  coupling it would also make it more difficult to use a custom
> built
> >> >> >> llvm
> >> >> >> toolchain, i can just change a registry setting right now and it’s
> >> >> >> good
> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> go.  Even the builtin VS toolchains use the registry to locate
> >> >> >> paths,
> >> >> >> and we
> >> >> >> were already reading the registry before this anyway
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Or we could just stick to the current installer version and make
> it
> >> >> >>> a
> >> >> >>> little smarter about finding VS2017. Maybe instead of the batch
> >> >> >>> files
> >> >> >>> we
> >> >> >>> write an actual program that finds the installation and copies
> the
> >> >> >>> files.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I definitely think vsix is the way to go.  I’d hate to stick with
> >> >> >> batch
> >> >> >> files and not use the proper method of having an extension.  It’s
> >> >> >> also
> >> >> >> more
> >> >> >> discoverable as an extension on the marketplace.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> ================
> >> >> >>> Comment at: llvm/tools/msbuild/LLVM.props:8
> >> >> >>> +    <!-- Friendly names added to the PlatformToolset in the
> >> >> >>> property
> >> >> >>> pages. -->
> >> >> >>> +    <_PlatformToolsetFriendlyNameFor_llvm
> >> >> >>> Condition="'$(_PlatformToolsetFriendlyNameFor_llvm)' == ''">Clang
> >> >> >>> for
> >> >> >>> Windows</_PlatformToolsetFriendlyNameFor_llvm>
> >> >> >>> +  </PropertyGroup>
> >> >> >>> ----------------
> >> >> >>> zturner wrote:
> >> >> >>> > hans wrote:
> >> >> >>> > > Hmm, we previously intentionally called the toolset "LLVM"
> with
> >> >> >>> > > the
> >> >> >>> > > thinking that it would eventually include lld and designated
> >> >> >>> > > the
> >> >> >>> > > complete
> >> >> >>> > > llvm toolchain, not just Clang. And is the "for Windows" part
> >> >> >>> > > necessary?
> >> >> >>> > Do you think there's any value in having a toolset that does
> >> >> >>> > Clang+Link
> >> >> >>> > and a second one that does Clang+LLD?  Or do you think we
> should
> >> >> >>> > stick with
> >> >> >>> > only a single one?  I can change the name to LLVM though.
> >> >> >>> The best would be to only have one, but where the user could
> select
> >> >> >>> between the two linkers, I think.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yea.  Can try that in a followup, may be tricky though
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> ================
> >> >> >>> Comment at: llvm/tools/msbuild/Toolset.targets:38
> >> >> >>> +
> >> >> >>> +    <!-- Warn if Fiber Safe Optimizations are enabled, and then
> >> >> >>> ignore
> >> >> >>> them. -->
> >> >> >>> +    <Warning
> >> >> >>> Condition="'%(ClCompile.EnableFiberSafeOptimizations)'
> >> >> >>> ==
> >> >> >>> 'true'"
> >> >> >>> ----------------
> >> >> >>> zturner wrote:
> >> >> >>> > hans wrote:
> >> >> >>> > > This seems to duplicate a lot of logic from clang-cl. It's
> nice
> >> >> >>> > > to
> >> >> >>> > > provide a good UI for the user, but maintaining this seems a
> >> >> >>> > > lot
> >> >> >>> > > of work.
> >> >> >>> > > Are you not concerned that this will rot?
> >> >> >>> > I don't think it will.  Maybe I'm being overly optimistic here,
> >> >> >>> > but
> >> >> >>> > the
> >> >> >>> > only case we would ever need to maintain this again is if we
> >> >> >>> > started
> >> >> >>> > supporting these options.  Fiber Safe Optimizations, for
> example,
> >> >> >>> > I'm pretty
> >> >> >>> > sure we will never support.  If MSVC ever removes the option,
> for
> >> >> >>> > example,
> >> >> >>> > we can do nothing and continue to work.
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > We could also just silently ignore them and just pass the
> option
> >> >> >>> > through to clang-cl, but these are pretty unusual options with
> >> >> >>> > pretty
> >> >> >>> > specialized use cases, so I feel like if I had gone out of my
> way
> >> >> >>> > to
> >> >> >>> > enable
> >> >> >>> > such a strange option I would want to know if the compiler was
> >> >> >>> > not
> >> >> >>> > going to
> >> >> >>> > respect it.
> >> >> >>> I feel pretty strongly that we should handle this clang-cl side.
> If
> >> >> >>> a
> >> >> >>> flag is not supported, either we should ignore it, or if it's
> >> >> >>> something the
> >> >> >>> user would want to know about us not supporting, we should warn.
> >> >> >>> That's what
> >> >> >>> clang-cl tries to do currently, and if there are flags we don't
> get
> >> >> >>> right,
> >> >> >>> we should fix it.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> And we do move flags from the unsupported to supported category
> now
> >> >> >>> and
> >> >> >>> then, so the "only case we would ever need to maintain this again
> >> >> >>> is
> >> >> >>> if we
> >> >> >>> started supporting these options" scenario is real.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It’s not a matter of clang-cl doing it right or wrong, it’s that
> >> >> >> there
> >> >> >> are
> >> >> >> other moving parts before it even gets to clang-cl.  Specifically,
> >> >> >> MSBuild.
> >> >> >> We’ve already seen one example of how  just letting clang-cl do
> its
> >> >> >> thing is
> >> >> >> insufficient, and nothing we can ever do in clang-cl can fix that.
> >> >> >> Given
> >> >> >> that it’s required sometimes, and that doing it for all options
> >> >> >> doesn’t
> >> >> >> increase our maintenance burden, i think it makes sense to do it
> >> >> >> everywhere
> >> >> >> and never have to deal with msbuild issues again.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> ================
> >> >> >>> Comment at: llvm/tools/msbuild/Toolset.targets:46
> >> >> >>> +             File="@(ClCompile)(0,0)"
> >> >> >>> +             Text="clang-cl does not support MSVC Link Time
> >> >> >>> Optimization.  Disable this option in compatibility settings to
> >> >> >>> silence this
> >> >> >>> warning."/>
> >> >> >>> +
> >> >> >>> ----------------
> >> >> >>> zturner wrote:
> >> >> >>> > hans wrote:
> >> >> >>> > > But maybe we want clang-cl to map this to -flto one day. Now
> we
> >> >> >>> > > need
> >> >> >>> > > to update two places. And with the toolset/toolchain install
> >> >> >>> > > split, the two
> >> >> >>> > > places may be installed separately :-/
> >> >> >>> > That's even better then.  All we have to do is change this xml,
> >> >> >>> > push
> >> >> >>> > a
> >> >> >>> > new build to the market place, and the VS UI will update their
> >> >> >>> > extension for
> >> >> >>> > them.
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > Note that we could do the mapping at the MSBuild level, in this
> >> >> >>> > file
> >> >> >>> > down below where we have an `ItemGroup`.  Just add a line that
> >> >> >>> > says
> >> >> >>> > `<AdditionalOptions
> >> >> >>> > Condition="%(ClCompile.WholeProgramOptimization)' ==
> >> >> >>> > 'true'>-flto=thin %(AdditionalOptions)</AdditionalOptions>`
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > and we can do this without touching clang.
> >> >> >>> But the toolset is decoupled from the toolchain in your proposal.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Not only would we need to update both clang-cl and this file, but
> >> >> >>> this
> >> >> >>> file would need to handle clang-cl versions both before and
> after.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> We wouldn’t have to update clang-cl.  We could map ltcg to
> >> >> >> -flto=thin
> >> >> >> in
> >> >> >> the extension and it would automatically work with the installed
> >> >> >> toolchain.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> ================
> >> >> >>> Comment at: llvm/tools/msbuild/Toolset.targets:83
> >> >> >>> +
> >> >> >>> +    <!-- Warn if XML Documentation is generated, and then ignore
> >> >> >>> it.
> >> >> >>> -->
> >> >> >>> +    <Warning
> >> >> >>> Condition="'%(ClCompile.GenerateXMLDocumentationFiles)'
> >> >> >>> ==
> >> >> >>> 'true'"
> >> >> >>> ----------------
> >> >> >>> zturner wrote:
> >> >> >>> > hans wrote:
> >> >> >>> > > Keeping up with all these flags seems like a huge amount of
> >> >> >>> > > work.
> >> >> >>> > > Why
> >> >> >>> > > not just let clang-cl ignore it?
> >> >> >>> > See the large comment at the top of the file.  For some
> options,
> >> >> >>> > we
> >> >> >>> > could probably get by with this.  Maybe even this one, I
> debated
> >> >> >>> > on
> >> >> >>> > this
> >> >> >>> > particular one.
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > My bar was "If the option fundamentally changes assumptions
> about
> >> >> >>> > the
> >> >> >>> > way code could be compiled, we should generate an error.  If it
> >> >> >>> > changes the
> >> >> >>> > behavior of the language in a way we don't support,  changes
> the
> >> >> >>> > way
> >> >> >>> > we
> >> >> >>> > generate code in a meaningful way, or causes specialized output
> >> >> >>> > files to be
> >> >> >>> > written, warn, and if it's an option we ignore then drop it"
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > The last category there we could probably just pass through in
> >> >> >>> > some
> >> >> >>> > cases, but in that comment I also mentioned a case where
> setting
> >> >> >>> > an
> >> >> >>> > option
> >> >> >>> > that clang-cl ignores impacts MSBuild's ability to figure out
> >> >> >>> > dependencies
> >> >> >>> > and ends up causing a full rebuild every time even when nothing
> >> >> >>> > changed.
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > We can scour the entire cl build tasks and try to discover if
> any
> >> >> >>> > other
> >> >> >>> > ones have unintended consequences, but I think it's easier to
> >> >> >>> > just
> >> >> >>> > turn them
> >> >> >>> > off at the MSBuild level.  And as a side benefit, the user gets
> >> >> >>> > shorter
> >> >> >>> > command lines, which is always nice.
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > As for maintenance, this all looks like zero-maintenance code
> to
> >> >> >>> > me.
> >> >> >>> > Did you have an example in mind of where we'd need to update
> >> >> >>> > this?
> >> >> >>> > Whether
> >> >> >>> > it be a new VS version, or VS dropping support for one of these
> >> >> >>> > options or
> >> >> >>> > deprecating them, I don't think we'd have to do anything.
> >> >> >>> The maintenance would come from when clang-cl changes how it
> >> >> >>> handles
> >> >> >>> some
> >> >> >>> option, or when VS adds new options.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> But these are all really obscure options that we will probably
> never
> >> >> >> touch.  When vc adds new options we’re not obligated to update
> this
> >> >> >> file
> >> >> >> either.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> ================
> >> >> >>> Comment at: llvm/tools/msbuild/install.bat:10
> >> >> >>> +REM Older versions of VS would look for these files in the
> Program
> >> >> >>> Files\MSBuild directory
> >> >> >>> +REM but with VS2017 it seems to look for these directly in the
> >> >> >>> Visual
> >> >> >>> Studio instance.
> >> >> >>> +REM This means we'll need to do a little extra work to properly
> >> >> >>> detect
> >> >> >>> all the various
> >> >> >>> ----------------
> >> >> >>> zturner wrote:
> >> >> >>> > hans wrote:
> >> >> >>> > > Don't we want to support at least 2015 too?
> >> >> >>> > Mentioned in the other review, but the install.bat file
> shouldn't
> >> >> >>> > really be used anymore except for during development.  The VSIX
> >> >> >>> > supports
> >> >> >>> > both 2015 and 2017 (I tested it in both and confirmed it works)
> >> >> >>> Hmm, but then we should delete it, or at least take it out of the
> >> >> >>> installer, and we need a replacement. As it is now, if we land
> >> >> >>> this,
> >> >> >>> it
> >> >> >>> breaks the installer for versions before 2017.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I thought i took it out of the installer, but maybe I missed
> >> >> >> something.
> >> >> >> We still need it for dev purposes because it allows us to
> overwrite
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> existing installed version with new files
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >> > llvm-commits mailing list
> >> >> > llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
> >> >> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
> >> >> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20180202/b84df4bd/attachment.html>