-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.3k
[PS4,PS5][Driver] Check for absent SDK when -nostdlib/-nodefaultlibs #107112
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
playstation-edd
merged 1 commit into
llvm:main
from
playstation-edd:check-absent-sdk-nostdlib-nodefaultlibs
Sep 4, 2024
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just to confirm my understanding, we're intending that the library check occurs, testing that the diagnostic occurs should be covered by an earlier RUN line, thus it's correct to delete these?
The opposing view would be "we're changing the compiler-driver behaviour, so should positively test that it does what we want", which would mean leaving these RUN lines here and checking that they behave the same as without the flags (i.e.
--check-prefixes=WARN-SYS-HEADERS,WARN-SYS-LIBS,NO-WARN
). I lean slightly in this direction, @pogo59 how do you feel?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If we had done it this way in the first place, we wouldn't have added RUN lines to check these conditions, so on that basis I'm okay with deleting these RUN lines and not checking that
-nodefaultlibs -nostdlib
have no effect on the warnings.Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
(EDIT: I was racing with Paul while typing this)
I generally favour leaving the test as it would be if the code was like that in the first place, as it avoids indefinite accumulation. Assuming the commit goes in as thing stands, there's no more reason to check for interaction with
-nodefaultlibs
as there is for interaction with-nolibc
(which the code ignores, currently). And so it also avoids hitches for the reader ("well of course there's no interaction with xyz... why would be checking it?").With any luck, near future changes will go on to implement complete behaviour for all these
-no...
switches for library control. At which point new affirmative checks will be introduced.With my case made, I'm also content to amend if we want that.