jhenderson added a comment. In D103125#2780936 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D103125#2780936>, @dblaikie wrote:
> Can't say I'm super enthusiastic about this (I assume the build already > supports prefixes and suffixes, which I'd hope would be adequate - but > presumably are not for your use case), though there's some, I think, related > prior art: Sony folks (@probinson @jhenderson) have (or had at some point) > different C++ language standard/version defaults than upstream and have > maintained/made changes to upstream test cases that assume the upstream > default version to not make that assumption (to have it explicit). So having > some costs/changes upstream for downstream differences like this seems at > least vaguely plausible to me. We do our executable renaming post build and lit testing. We do the renaming to nearly all our built tools, not just the clang (clang++ etc) family, e.g. the LLVM binutils like llvm-objdump becomes xxx-llvm-objdump, so unless the scope of this increases to include those, I'm not sure how useful it would be to us (and expanding the scope to other tools becomes problematic because there isn't a `%clang` equivalent for testing purposes for those other tools, so presumably would require significantly more updates?). @probinson may have more thoughts on this though. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D103125/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D103125 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
