[llvm-dev] [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] Should we stop supporting building with Visual Studio?

[via llvm-dev]

I build with the VS project. I find it more convenient to do that than have VS and a cmd window open to run ninja. Especially when I’ve got more than 1 copy of VS open looking at different release trains. I wouldn’t mind using ninja to build, but only if it worked when I right click on lldb and select “Build”.

 

Our buildbots use msbuild on the project, like this:

call "c:/Program Files (x86)/Microsoft Visual Studio 14.0/VC/vcvarsall.bat" x64 & msbuild ALL_BUILD.vcxproj /m /property:Configuration=Release

 

--

Ted Woodward

Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.

Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

 

From: lldb-dev <lldb-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Zachary Turner via lldb-dev
Sent: Monday, October 8, 2018 1:58 PM
To: Stephen Kelly <steveire at gmail.com>
Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org; lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
Subject: Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] Should we stop supporting building with Visual Studio?

 

 

On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 11:54 AM Stephen Kelly via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> > wrote:


> 3) Even if you do pass -Thost=x64 to CMake, it will apparently still 
> fail sometimes.  See this thread for details: 
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2018-October/059609.html.  It 
> seems the parallel build scheduler does not do a good job and can bring 
> a machine down.  This is not the first time though, every couple of 
> months there's a thread about how building or running tests from within 
> VS doesn't work.

I don't know any more about this. It would be good to know more than 
that it can "apparently fail sometimes".

 

Sadly that's part of the problem.  Very few people actually use the Visual Studio generator for building, so a lot of times when we get people with issues, nobody knows how to help (or the person that does know doesn't see the thread).  So they get a response like "hmm, not many people actually use that workflow, can you try this instead?"

 

I feel bad when I can't help, and that's part of why I made this proposal in the first place, because fewer supported options in the configuration matrix means people are more likely to find someone who understands the problem when something goes wrong.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20181008/92573785/attachment.html>