In that case, can this be a follow-up patch (which may not happen immediately)? It's using the A functions before my patch anyway, so I'm introducing anything that's worse than before. I can leave a comment in the code that mentions that we need to eventually convert to using W functions, and doing so requires refactoring the registry support code.
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Zachary Turner <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Zachary Turner <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Aaron Ballman > >> > <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Zachary Turner <[email protected]> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > - > >> >> > std::unique_ptr<Command> visualstudio::Compile::GetCommand( > >> >> > Compilation &C, const JobAction &JA, const InputInfo &Output, > >> >> > const InputInfoList &Inputs, const ArgList &Args, > >> >> > Index: lib/Driver/WindowsToolChain.cpp > >> >> > =================================================================== > >> >> > --- lib/Driver/WindowsToolChain.cpp > >> >> > +++ lib/Driver/WindowsToolChain.cpp > >> >> > @@ -77,61 +77,59 @@ > >> >> > return getArch() == llvm::Triple::x86_64; > >> >> > } > >> >> > > >> >> > +#ifdef USE_WIN32 > >> >> > +static bool readFullStringValue(HKEY hkey, const char *valueName, > >> >> > + std::string &value) { > >> >> > >> >> We should be preferring the W versions of these APIs instead of the A > >> >> versions, especially since this is being used to pull out file paths. > >> > > >> > How does this work, since ultimately all of clang uses non-wide > >> > character > >> > strings anyway. I mean I know how to convert between the two, but I > was > >> > under the impression that everything was just already broken because > >> > afaik > >> > we don't ever use W functions anywhere else. > >> > >> My understanding is that we use the W versions of the APIs and > >> immediately convert to UTF-8 to store internally. When we require > >> interaction in the other direction, we convert back to UTF-16. At > >> least, this is how we work with things like command line arguments and > >> files. As an example, see Process::GetArgumentVector. > > > > > > So llvm::sys::windows::UTF8ToUTF16 and its counterpart are not exposed > in a > > public header. Is there an accepted way to re-use them here, or do I > need > > to duplicate the code in clang? > > There's not an accepted way currently, but duplication isn't the answer > either. > > I think the registry code should be pulled down into an LLVM Support > interface that's available on Windows (since we're already using > USE_WIN32 within clang, I don't think the interface needs x-platform > stubs), and the conversion routines hoisted to a place where they can > be exposed for use within Support so that they can be used with the > registry code. Registry use shouldn't be overly widespread, so I think > the abstraction could be fairly simplistic. > > ~Aaron >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
