sgraenitz added inline comments.
================ Comment at: CMakeLists.txt:403 +set(LLVM_CODESIGNING_IDENTITY "" CACHE STRING + "Sign executables and dylibs with the given identity or skip if empty (Darwin Only)") + ---------------- Identity should be a string right? ================ Comment at: cmake/modules/AddLLVM.cmake:795 - llvm_codesign(${name}) + llvm_codesign(TARGET ${name} ENTITLEMENTS ${ARG_ENTITLEMENTS} FORCE) endmacro(add_llvm_executable name) ---------------- sgraenitz wrote: > beanz wrote: > > sgraenitz wrote: > > > Would we want to pass `FORCE` to `add_llvm_executable` conditionally? > > I'm trying to think about the situations in which we need the `FORCE` > > option. Since this is connecting as a post-build event it shouldn't be > > running unless the target re-generates the output, so I'm not sure I > > understand why we ever need it. > > > > I did the git blame walk back to when the code was initially added in > > `49dd98a03a`, and there is no explanation. I suspect debugserver doesn't > > actually need the `--force` option because the author of the initial patch > > probably hit errors when re-signing the pre-built binary in his build > > directory. > > > > Thoughts? > I think you are right, it shouldn't be necessary. In practice, though, I can > imagine situations when we want to make sure this won't fail in any case. > > The options are: remove entirely (most correct) OR allow enable per target > (most flexible) OR allow enable globally. > > What about the last one? I could add `LLVM_CODESIGNING_FORCE` which is OFF by > default. In failsafe/debugging situations it could be turned ON globally. I > could remove the `FORCE` parameter here and check the flag in `llvm_codesign` > (similar to `LLVM_CODESIGNING_IDENTITY`). Patch updated Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D54443 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits