-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.7k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Meson env fixes for icc-cl and msvc #14175
Open
gfudies
wants to merge
1
commit into
mesonbuild:master
Choose a base branch
from
gfudies:master
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+10
−8
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ def detect_static_linker(env: 'Environment', compiler: Compiler) -> StaticLinker | |
for linker in trials: | ||
linker_name = os.path.basename(linker[0]) | ||
|
||
if any(os.path.basename(x) in {'lib', 'lib.exe', 'llvm-lib', 'llvm-lib.exe', 'xilib', 'xilib.exe'} for x in linker): | ||
if os.getenv('FORCE_MSVC_ARFLAGS') or any(os.path.basename(x) in {'lib', 'lib.exe', 'llvm-lib', 'llvm-lib.exe', 'xilib', 'xilib.exe'} for x in linker): | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. idk what to name this or how to pipe it through ini files There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. @eli-schwartz any input/suggestions on this? |
||
arg = '/?' | ||
elif linker_name in {'ar2000', 'ar2000.exe', 'ar430', 'ar430.exe', 'armar', 'armar.exe', 'ar6x', 'ar6x.exe'}: | ||
arg = '?' | ||
|
@@ -483,7 +483,9 @@ def sanitize(p: T.Optional[str]) -> T.Optional[str]: | |
target = 'x86' if 'IA-32' in err else 'x86_64' | ||
cls = c.IntelClCCompiler if lang == 'c' else cpp.IntelClCPPCompiler | ||
env.coredata.add_lang_args(cls.language, cls, for_machine, env) | ||
linker = linkers.XilinkDynamicLinker(for_machine, [], version=version) | ||
linker_exe = env.lookup_binary_entry(for_machine, 'c_ld') | ||
linker_exelist = [linker_exe] if linker_exe else None | ||
linker = linkers.XilinkDynamicLinker(for_machine, [], version=version, exelist=linker_exelist) | ||
return cls( | ||
compiler, version, for_machine, is_cross, info, target, | ||
linker=linker) | ||
|
@@ -492,7 +494,9 @@ def sanitize(p: T.Optional[str]) -> T.Optional[str]: | |
target = 'x86' if 'IA-32' in err else 'x86_64' | ||
cls = c.IntelLLVMClCCompiler if lang == 'c' else cpp.IntelLLVMClCPPCompiler | ||
env.coredata.add_lang_args(cls.language, cls, for_machine, env) | ||
linker = linkers.XilinkDynamicLinker(for_machine, [], version=version) | ||
linker_exe = env.lookup_binary_entry(for_machine, 'c_ld') | ||
linker_exelist = [linker_exe] if linker_exe else None | ||
linker = linkers.XilinkDynamicLinker(for_machine, [], version=version, exelist=linker_exelist) | ||
return cls( | ||
compiler, version, for_machine, is_cross, info, target, | ||
linker=linker) | ||
|
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks like it belongs in a distinct commit. We should also find out why it triggers at all, e.g. what is the backtrace it's asking for?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
was hoping @jpakkane could tell me why this was added in the first place. 181c349#diff-7ada83df1272b6eaaff2fea8bbbb14ff9cd6baaf7de40c532fe95acf9bf73fbcR546 . It looks like a hack to me but I don't know this code base very well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Without this change I get
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The reason it was added is because the type of the thing will change when the option refactor branch lands (should happen immediately after 1.7 release). Things used to be stored in separate places so the thing could be a dictionary or a "proxy object" that pretends to be a dictionary. Those all will go away and options are stored wholly inside the
OptionStore
object.IIRC I did not fix it "properly" at the time because it would have taken a lot of effort and the entire code path would get deleted fairly soon anyway.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
so what would you suggest I do for now then?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@dcbaker should I drop this and retry against some other branch then?