> LGTM. Thanks. Please could you commit for me? I don't have access yet.
-Greg Rafael Espíndola <[email protected]> wrote on 24/09/2013 22:15:42: > From: Rafael Espíndola <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: llvm cfe <[email protected]>, llvm-commits <llvm- > [email protected]> > Date: 24/09/2013 22:15 > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Explicitly specify CMake MSVC stack size > > On 24 September 2013 17:13, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks for looking at this! > > > >> This changes the stack of every tool, not just clang, right? > > > > Yes and no depending on how you look at it. It increases the stack size > > for every tool for anybody that is already using CMake 2.8.11, but it > > prevents the stack size from changing for anybody in future that is still > > using a previous version. According to cmake.org, 2.8.11 was released in > > May 2013, so I'm guessing that a lot of people may not have had reason to > > update yet. The only reason I updated was because the previous version I > > was using was too old for compiler-rt which I wanted to mess around with. > > > >>Is it possible to change it just for clang? > >> > > > > It's true that the only place I've actually observed us actually requiring > > 10MB of stack is in clang.exe, but then I have more exhaustive tests for > > clang.exe than any other tool :). The primary motivation here is to avoid > > the situation where two people building the exact same revision with > > exactly the same MSVC version get different results with one of the tools > > depending on the version of CMake they happen to have installed. It just > > feels like it's a horrible day of debugging for someone later on down the > > line. > > > > My idea was that we apply this to every tool for now in order to preserve > > previous behaviour, and then at the point where we mandate a version of > > CMake that supports CMAKE_CXX_STACK_SIZE we can find more appropriate > > values for each tool (most likely, the default 1MB I'll concede for tools > > other than clang). This will then guarantee that anyone trying to hunt > > down any strange regressions can at least track it down to a single > > revision that changed the stack size. > > > > Does this sound like a reasonable approach? > > I think so. > > LGTM. > > Cheers, > Rafael ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify [email protected] This footnote also confirms that this email message has been checked for all known viruses. Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Limited Registered Office: 10 Great Marlborough Street, London W1F 7LP, United Kingdom Registered in England: 3277793 ********************************************************************** P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
