trcrsired wrote: > > > I've always kind of held out this idea that clang[++] are perfectly > > > reasonable frontends to use when targeting an MSVC-environment with an > > > official Microsoft Windows SDK > > > > > > Me too, but isn't this PR a different idea? This is about using clang with > > MSVC/Win SDK turned into a Unix-style sysroot, which seems like a much > > narrower use case. > > I think it would be better if the driver could work with the MSVC/SDK > > as-is, rather than forcing the user to change the SDK into a form that the > > driver likes (even if it's a "standard" form in the sense that other > > sysroots use it). That would probably require more work, such as supporting > > case-insensitive includes, but seems like it would be much user friendlier. > > But I won't block this if there's otherwise strong support for it. > > cross compiling is not a narrow use bro. > > And this PR will allow using libc++ with microsoft sdk too and unfortunately > microsoft puts C headers and MSVC STL headers together. Without a UNIX style > sysroot that seperates msvc stl headers into a seperate include/c++/msvcstl > there is no way to get it work.
in fact i use clang on my android phone to cross compile windows on arm .exe binaries and run eith wine every day. It is literally native compilation for me at this point. ![Uploading Screenshot_20260821-182549.png…]() I think the reason you said it is narrow probably because you come from the background of big tech such as google which relies on libc++ on windows that is fine. But for small devs like me who need toolchains to run on android cross compilung is a huge big deal https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96417 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
