thakis marked an inline comment as done.
thakis added a comment.
Thanks!
================
Comment at:
llvm/utils/gn/secondary/clang-tools-extra/unittests/clang-apply-replacements/BUILD.gn:3
+
+unittest("ClangApplyReplacementsTests") {
+ configs += [ "//llvm/utils/gn/build:clang_code" ]
----------------
mbonadei wrote:
> Why don't we use `output_name` here as well? It seems to be available for
> executables
> (https://gn.googlesource.com/gn/+/master/docs/reference.md#target-declarations-executable_declare-an-executable-target-variables).
> The current style seems to be lisp-case for target names and have
> `output_name` matching the cmake build.
That's a good question. phosek asked about this too here:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20181231/614211.html
I don't think there's a really good reason for this. I don't remember why I did
it this way.
Trying to come up with a justification after the fact: A weak reason is that
for static libraries it doesn't really matter what they're called on disk
(other than to llvm-config's lit tests, which is why the GN build matches the
cmake build -- else I wouldn't set the output name there), but for executables
you need to know the name of the executable to run it, and it's maybe nice if
the target has the same name as the executable for that reason.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D60038/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D60038
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
