aaron.ballman added a comment. In D122335#3403357 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122335#3403357>, @erichkeane wrote:
> In D122335#3403305 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122335#3403305>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> In D122335#3403283 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122335#3403283>, @abrachet >> wrote: >> >>> In D122335#3403281 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122335#3403281>, >>> @hubert.reinterpretcast wrote: >>> >>>> For users on Windows, would this cause extra trouble if they wanted to see >>>> what was included? >>> >>> Is `tar(1)` not available on Windows? >> >> It's available on Windows 10 and later by default, but otherwise .zip is the >> native archive format on Windows. > > We DO support older versions of Windows (Windows Server 2003 is still quite > popular!), so presumably this requirement wouldn't be particularly acceptable. My feeling is: we have a TAR file writer, we don't have a ZIP file writer. While it'd be nice for us to produce zip files as those are more widely supported on all the platforms Clang runs on, it's a pretty heavy lift for this feature, especially given that newer versions of Windows come with a sufficiently useful tar program to handle them. So I'm fine with us producing TAR files -- if we decide to add support for ZIP in the future, we can allow the user to pick via a command line flag (or we could pick based on the host platform) and we can set the default behavior of Clang with a CMake flag. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D122335/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D122335 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
