-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30k
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
gyp, win: teach MSVS generator about MARMASM Items #26020
Conversation
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.
Thanks, LGTM with a comment. CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/20742/
@bnoordhuis, thanks for the look. Since that CI run failed, I've rebased the change. Please do let me know if there's anything else I need to do so this can land. |
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.
This should come via the upstream change (refack/GYP3#23), since we have no way to CI this here.
Understood. When I submitted this PR, my understanding was that there are three copies of GYP:
refack/GYP had not yet become the centralized upstream of GYP for Node.js. In turn, then, I made three PRs:
As I understand it, refack/GYP is becoming the new upstream. Since refack/GYP3#23 has already been merged, this PR can be closed as soon as the Node.js copy of GYP is updated to the new upstream. |
I had started a CI run that failed to compile with multiple errors of the form:
I confirmed this was because VS2017 was not fully updated on that machine and that any updated installation of VS2017 should have that file, whether ARM components were selected or not. I endured VS2017 is updated and receiving automatic updated on all our machines, so we should not see this again. |
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.
I'm ok with getting this from refack/GYP3#23, but anyway this LGTM.
@refack can you please briefly elaborate what should be done here? |
The toolchain for ARM64 Windows includes support for assembly code, but with a very different syntax from MASM and NASM. This change teaches GYP how to emit the right XML tags in VCXPROJ files to support compiling assembly files with the new tool.
Ping @refack |
Superseded by #26620 |
In general I'm -1 on landing code that is not covered by our CI ¯\(ツ)/¯ |
This is not code for a Tier 1 or 2 supported platform, but to enable compilation for an experimental platform. This was tested by CI for Tier 1 and 2 platforms, confirming it does not cause any regressions for those. In any case, this has landed in refack/GYP in refack/GYP3#23, and is already part of #26620. @refack since this is for an experimental platform is there a reason to block this from landing? |
Forgot it's designated experimental. |
The toolchain for ARM64 Windows includes support for assembly code, but with a very different syntax from MASM and NASM. This change teaches GYP how to emit the right XML tags in VCXPROJ files to support compiling assembly files with the new tool. PR-URL: #26020 Refs: #25998 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: João Reis <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]>
Landed in 06c10cd |
The toolchain for ARM64 Windows includes support for assembly code, but with a very different syntax from MASM and NASM. This change teaches GYP how to emit the right XML tags in VCXPROJ files to support compiling assembly files with the new tool.
Checklist
make -j4 test
(UNIX), orvcbuild test
(Windows) passes