sgraenitz abandoned this revision. sgraenitz added a comment. In D64395#1576738 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64395#1576738>, @ldionne wrote:
> libc++ decides to build or not build `libc++.dylib`/`libc++.a` based on the > value of `LIBCXX_ENABLE_SHARED` and `LIBCXX_ENABLE_STATIC`, if that's your > question. Sure. I was wondering whether libc++ makes assumptions based on those flags that would break, if we changed them from the outside later on. >> Yes, I think so. Adding lldb to `LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS` will disable >> `libc++.dylib` globally, ... > > In that case, I'm really not a big fan of this approach. I think it's not > good hygiene for another project to be poking at libc++'s build options like > that. Those are meant to be set by end-users configuring what they want from > libc++ only, not set by other projects in the monorepo. To illustrate, I > think it's highly confusing if adding `-DLLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS=lldb` suddenly > disables the building of `libc++.dylib`. I think, the condition reduces the potential harm to an acceptable minimum. But yes I agree, it's not good hygiene. We should advise everyone to use the right flags or caches. > I think your problem might fix itself with https://reviews.llvm.org/D63883. > What exactly is the problem you're trying to solve? Yes, I think that would work. I'll drop that patch for now and wait for your fix. **For people reading this after the fact, please pre-populate your cache with something like 1665dd63466b <https://reviews.llvm.org/rG1665dd63466b6d284c75c3543e3fdb19314d752f> or pass the flags manually.** Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D64395/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D64395 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
