See my other response. Maybe we don’t even need a substitution at all?
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:24 PM Benoit Belley via Phabricator <
revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
> belleyb added inline comments.
>
>
> ================
> Comment at: test/lit.cfg.py:52-57
> +if platform.system() in ['Windows']:
> + config.substitutions.append(('dos2unix', 'sed -b "s/\r$//"'))
> + config.substitutions.append(('unix2dos', 'sed -b "s/\r*$/\r/"'))
> +else:
> + config.substitutions.append(('dos2unix', "sed $'s/\r$//'"))
> + config.substitutions.append(('unix2dos', "sed $'s/\r*$/\r/'"))
> ----------------
> caoz wrote:
> > zturner wrote:
> > > Since the user has `sed` already, why wouldn't they have the actual
> tool `dos2unix` and `unix2dos`?
> > Thanks Zachary. dos2unix and unix2dos aren't installed by default on
> Linux/Mac. However, if the user can be assumed to have them, I can remove
> these substitutions.
> @zturner According to https://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#software,
> we shouldn't be relying on `dos2unix` nor `unix2dos` to be present on a
> build machine.
>
> Note that the `$'string'` syntax (ANSI-C quotes) is a `bash` extension.
> According to the page mentioned above, the LLVM builds should only be
> relying on having a Bourne shell (`sh`). But, are there still any *nix
> system out there where `/bin/sh` isn't a link for `\bin\bash` ? I.e. Is
> relying on `bash+sed` fine here ?
>
> A fully portable solution would be to write python scripts for
> `dos2unix.py` and `unix2dos.py`. That way, one would not be relying on
> build tools that LLVM isn't already using.
>
> Any advice on how to proceed ?
>
>
>
>
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D41081
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
