jrtc27 added a comment. In D91442#2399753 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91442#2399753>, @jrtc27 wrote:
> In D91442#2399750 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91442#2399750>, @abidh wrote: > >> In D91442#2399402 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91442#2399402>, @lenary wrote: >> >>> In D91442#2399341 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91442#2399341>, @abidh wrote: >>> >>>> In D91442#2399200 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91442#2399200>, @lenary wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm worried about this change - I *think* it doesn't cover the existing >>>>> behaviour of a baremetal GCC toolchain being installed into the same >>>>> prefix as clang, and clang automatically picking up that baremetal gcc >>>>> toolchain. What should we expect to do here? This is especially an issue >>>>> if you're trying to make a relocatable toolchain tarball, where >>>>> specifying `--gcc-toolchain` automatically is difficult. >>>> >>>> Would it be possible to use a relative path with --gcc-toolchain then this >>>> can be checked in either RISCVToolChain.cpp or GNU.cpp and adjusted >>>> accordingly? >>> >>> The GCC toolchain, when given a relative path, already interprets it >>> relative to the working directory the compiler was invoked from, not the >>> directory the compiler is located in, iirc. >> >> I dont think path is made absolute relative using working directory. What is >> happening is that if (!VFS.exists(Prefix)) call in the following line will >> succeed if the path existed relative to working directory. This seems >> accidental to me. >> >> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/5a9f3867046c4e1c97760e22a505f4d1d788417e/clang/lib/Driver/ToolChains/Gnu.cpp#L1947 >> >> I tried a small change to turn a relative --gcc-toolchain into absolute >> using the compiler installed path and it works ok. If this is something >> that works for you then I can post a patch. > > Relative paths should be relative to the current working directory. That is > what everyone expects and is what every other argument does (and see `=` and > `$SYSROOT` for how GCC and compatible drivers get around that in cases like > -I). And how is that accidental? It looks to me like the correct behaviour naturally falls out just as it normally does in that by default anything involving a relative path automatically interprets it relative to the current working directory. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D91442/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D91442 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
