makslevental wrote: > I don't fully understand the rationale for adding this test. I followed the > links, and it seems to stem from [this > comment](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/157583#issuecomment-3274164357). > But the relationship between that failure and this test is not clear to me. > What does Standalone project have to do with testing `install-distributions`?
The existing Standalone test already performs a nested build command: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/d75b837ff4c27c8ab39a11a50ff64db3687503a7/mlir/test/Examples/standalone/test.toy#L1-L8 That's why adding another similar test (a nested build but simply against a different `MLIR_DIR`) occurred to me. > The test appears to be launching a CMake configuration process operating on > the same build/source directory, and then also a nested build command...but > the parent process is itself a cmake build command in the same build > directory. Is such a thing even supported by CMake? Seems like the result of > doing that would be undefined behavior. You're right that reconfiguring is suspect but then we can just take the other choice and go with the version that tests `"%cmake_exe" --build "%llvm_obj_root" --target install` instead of `install-distribution`. > Wouldn't the failure mentioend by @ftynse be caught by exercising > `install-distributions` in any normal CI test? Yes but then you're proposing we should add to the `monolithic` scripts an invocation of `install-distributions`? That seems fine too. > This patch can probably do what libc++ does and install to a directory inside > the build directory. @boomanaiden154 can I get a link to this - I can't find it. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/157944 _______________________________________________ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
