smeenai added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lib/CMakeLists.txt:108-109 +if (LIBCXX_TARGETING_WINDOWS) + add_compile_flags(/Zl) + add_link_flags(/nodefaultlib) + add_library_flags(ucrt) # Universal C runtime ---------------- halyavin wrote: > smeenai wrote: > > These should be guarded under a check for a cl or cl-like frontend rather > > than `LIBCXX_TARGETING_WINDOWS` (since in theory we could be using the > > regular clang frontend to compile for Windows as well). > Regular clang supports both gcc-like and cl-like options (there are 2 > compilers: clang.exe and clang-cl.exe). I think it is not worth it to support > both considering they differ only in command line options handling. I'm aware of the separate drivers, but I still think it's worthwhile specifying appropriate conditionals when it's easy enough to do. (In this case, the inverse check of https://reviews.llvm.org/diffusion/L/browse/libcxx/trunk/CMakeLists.txt;291339$394 should do the trick.) ================ Comment at: lib/CMakeLists.txt:111 + add_library_flags(ucrt) # Universal C runtime + add_library_flags(vcruntime) # C++ runtime + add_library_flags(msvcrt) # C runtime startup files ---------------- halyavin wrote: > smeenai wrote: > > Idk if there's anything specific to C++ in vcruntime; it's more compiler > > runtime functions as far as I know. > It contains exception handling stuff. You're right, but it also contains `longjmp`, `memcpy`, `memmove`, `memset`, etc, which is why I found the comment slightly weird initially. I guess it's fairly accurate as far as the usage of vcruntime in libc++ goes though. https://reviews.llvm.org/D28441 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
