MaskRay added a comment. In D94890#2507856 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D94890#2507856>, @JDevlieghere wrote:
> In D94890#2507241 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D94890#2507241>, @MaskRay wrote: > >> In D94890#2505988 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D94890#2505988>, @labath wrote: >> >>> Looks like a nice cleanup. The only part I am not sure of is the part about >>> removing `$(RM) $(ARCHIVE_OBJECTS)`. Is that necessary? >>> I'm not sure why is that line there, but if I had to guess, I would say >>> it's to ensure that lldb (on macos) reads debug info from the archive file >>> instead of the original .o files. If it's not required, it may be better to >>> leave it in. Otherwise, someone from Apple should say whether that is ok >>> (testing archives is only really interesting on fruity platforms). >> >> I can add back it under the `ifeq "$(OS)" "Darwin"` guard if Apple folks >> think it is useful. > > It looks like we have only one test on llvm.org (+ one additional test in the > Swift fork) that's using this. My vote is to just remove this together with > the `ARCHIVE_C_SOURCES`, `ARCHIVE_CXX_SOURCES`, `ARCHIVE_OBJC_SOURCES` and > `ARCHIVE_OBJCXX_SOURCES` and inline it in that one test. Agree. " (+ one additional test in the Swift fork)" --- Sounds like this can be a separate patch which should Swift folks a heads-up. I don't know how to test Swift and probably someone else can do it:) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D94890/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D94890 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
