labath added inline comments. ================ Comment at: packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/make/Makefile.rules:304 @@ +303,3 @@ + $(subst $(3),$(1),$(2)), \ + $(if $(findstring ar,$(1)), \ + $(if $(findstring gcc,$(3)), \ ---------------- omjavaid wrote: > labath wrote: > > I think like we should replace ar with gcc-ar always, and not just when we > > don't have a version suffix present. When I have a gcc installed to a > > custom prefix, I get `$prefix/gcc-ar`, but not `$prefix/ar`. (Previously we > > would just use `ar` unconditionally, which was probably a bug.) > > > > Next, when you specify a clang compiler as `clang-3.5`, you will produce > > `ar-3.5`, which almost certainly does not exist. I think that in case of > > clang we should just strip the version suffix (produce `XXX-ar`) and hope > > for the best (should work for all our current use cases). > > > > Finally, I don't think objcopy is ever versioned with gcc (correct me if I > > am wrong), so I think that in case of objcopy we should strip the version > > suffix unconditionally `XXX-objcopy`. > > > > So, to summarize, these are the transformations I think are wrong: > > `foo/gcc` -> `foo/ar` (should be `foo/gcc-ar`) > > `clang-3.5` -> `ar-3.5` (should be `ar`) > > `gcc-4.8` -> `objcopy-4.8` (should be `objcopy`) > > > > Let me know if these are compatible with your requirements. If we can't > > find a set of rules that work everywhere, we will have to abandon the magic > > (or maybe just leave a simple one), and require the user to specify the > > paths manually... > I checked with gcc people in my team and here is what they have to say. > omjavaid, gcc-ar is a version of ar with LTO support > omjavaid, ar is just ar > omjavaid, likewise with gcc-nm and gcc-ranlib > omjavaid, ar comes from binutils, gcc-ar comes from gcc > > I agree with all other points you raised except for using gcc-ar in all > cases. We should decide between ar (binutils) or gcc-ar (LTO support gcc > packaged). > > Also present code doesnt generate obcopy-4.8 for me when i specify gcc-4.8. > If it does for you let me know. > I agree with all other points you raised except for using gcc-ar in all > cases. We should decide between ar (binutils) or gcc-ar (LTO support gcc > packaged). Ok, makes sense. Since we presently do not care about LTO support. I propose we just go with `ar` always. It will make things predictible, as we will avoid the whole version mess (we can just strip it). It will also mean we can treat `objcopy` and `ar` the same way. I.e., the transformation rule should be: `optional-path/optional-triple-gcc-optional.version` -> `optional-path/optional-triple-$TOOL`.
This will not cover all of the cases for us right now, because in case of a `gcc` installed to a custom prefix, there will not be an `ar` next to it, but I can fix that by adding a couple of symlinks. Would that work for you? > Also present code doesn't generate obcopy-4.8 for me when i specify gcc-4.8. > If it does for you let me know. It does not add the version suffix for me either. I must have got something wrong yesterday. Please ignore that remark. https://reviews.llvm.org/D20386 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
