mehdi_amini added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D26649#595361, @phosek wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D26649#595356, @mehdi_amini wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D26649#595296, @phosek wrote: > > > > > It's sufficient, I just tested it. > > > > > > How did you check it? I don't understand how LLVM_ENABLE_LLD is propagated > > to stage-2? > > > Sufficient as in Clang looks for lld in the same directory where > `clang`/`clang++` binary is first so we don't need to explicitly pass the > path to lld to later stages. OK, but still, LLVM_ENABLE_LLD needs to be passed to stage-2, so it needs to be actually BOOTSTRAP_LLVM_ENABLE_LLD. I looked at all the CMake `_PASSTHROUGH` and didn't find it mentioned anywhere. We could make it auto-forwarded in this case maybe, @beanz is best to answer this. Have you looked into turning `if(LLVM_ENABLE_LLD)` into `if(BOOTSTRAP_LLVM_ENABLE_LLD)`? Technically we may want to have the stage-2 linked with lld even if lld is not on the system and not available during stage1. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D26649 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
