xiaobai added a comment. In D71306#1779379 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71306#1779379>, @labath wrote:
> In D71306#1778472 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71306#1778472>, @xiaobai wrote: > > > I personally prefer the third approach. To make sure I understand > > correctly, I'll write it in my own words so you can correct me if I > > misunderstood. > > Try to find the dependency, and if we find it then use it. If not, then we > > can print out something like "Didn't find `DEPENDENCY`" and continue on our > > merry way. If the user overwrites the values and something goes wrong, send > > a fatal error and tell them that what the value they set isn't going to > > work without further work (e.g. explicitly enable python support but didn't > > find python? tell the user that you couldn't find python and maybe suggest > > setting some other CMake variables to help CMake find python). > > > How exactly does this "overwriting" work? Could you point me to the code that > does this? I don't remember seeing anything like this, but the llvm build is > not entirely consistent either, so it's possible we're looking at different > things... By overwrite, I meant that the user would explicitly set the value to `ON`. In the terms you used, this would be `FORCE_ON`. Repository: rLLDB LLDB CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D71306/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D71306 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
