hans accepted this revision. hans added inline comments. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
================ Comment at: clang/docs/UsersManual.rst:4504 +programs against the Windows system packages. Underlying the Windows SDK is the +UCRT, the universal C runtime. + ---------------- Optionally, If you wanted to be ultra pedagogical, this paragraph could perhaps list an example library/header as part of explaining the SDK, UCRT, and tools. ================ Comment at: clang/docs/UsersManual.rst:4537 + + TODO: This is not yet implemented. + ---------------- compnerd wrote: > hans wrote: > > But isn't this how clang-cl finds stuff when running in a "Visual Studio > > Command Prompt" / setenv / vcvars or whatever it's called these days? > > > > I think this would be the most common case for people building from the > > command line, and I'd suggest perhaps starting the list with this one (I > > realize they're currently sorted by precedence, but sorting by most common > > first would also be valid I think). > > But isn't this how clang-cl finds stuff when running in a "Visual Studio > > Command Prompt" / setenv / vcvars or whatever it's called these days? > > No, it isn't, because this is the Windows SDK portion. The environment > variable is for the Visual C++ tools only, the environment based SDK lookup > is unimplemented. > > Something something complexity something. > > This is part of why I structured this the way as I have. There are two parts > of the lookup here, the part dealing with the SDK and the part dealing with > the VC++ tools. Now, it could be argued that this is finer point of detail > that most will not care about, and I am concerned that is very much true, but > the reality is that there is a bunch of complexity in the lookup and the > value in documenting the behaviour is that we can easily lookup how to > control the behaviour of the driver. > > > I think this would be the most common case for people building from the > > command line, and I'd suggest perhaps starting the list with this one (I > > realize they're currently sorted by precedence, but sorting by most common > > first would also be valid I think). > > I think that common behaviour should be listed in prose. If someone has more > than one mechanism in the command line, the resulting behaviour would not > match the written one and that can lead to confusion. > No, it isn't, because this is the Windows SDK portion. Oh, I see. I clearly missed that detail :) > I think that common behaviour should be listed in prose. Fair enough. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D146165/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D146165 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
