build: depend on the architecture variant on non-MachO #14243
Conversation
|
@swift-ci please test |
|
Build failed |
|
Please be consistent with #13108 about whether this is testing for Mach-O or IS_DARWIN. |
|
@jrose-apple I thought we settled on it being a MachO thing, not a Darwin thing. |
|
I saw you comment that but I didn't see if @zbowling agreed, and I don't think anyone else has been following it. |
For the non-MachO targets, which do not have the concept of fat binaries, depend explicitly on the architecture variant. This is particularly useful for Windows which permits cross-compilation and cross-targeting of all the variants even though it does not support fat binaries. This allows us to build a single variant of the windows standard library at a time in the case that we would like to build a subset of the targets.
compnerd
force-pushed
the
skinny-variants
branch
from
8258644 to
5312266
Compare
|
@swift-ci please test |
|
Build failed |
|
Build failed |
|
@swift-ci please test linux platform |
|
Build failed |
|
Please test with following pull request: @swift-ci Please test Linux platform |
|
Build failed |
|
Please test with following pull request: @swift-ci please test |
|
Build failed |
For the non-MachO targets, which do not have the concept of fat
binaries, depend explicitly on the architecture variant. This is
particularly useful for Windows which permits cross-compilation and
cross-targeting of all the variants even though it does not support fat
binaries. This allows us to build a single variant of the windows
standard library at a time in the case that we would like to build a
subset of the targets.
Replace this paragraph with a description of your changes and rationale. Provide links to external references/discussions if appropriate.
Resolves SR-NNNN.