1450699 - Always use link.exe in Windows static analysis builds

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Firefox Build System :: General, enhancement)

Description

[(Away)]

Currently the static analysis builders are unable to use lld-link, for at least two reasons:

- Their revision of LLVM is so old that it is missing some lld-link fixes that are required to build Firefox. We can't update their LLVM because nobody knows how to solve bug 1427808. We _could_ cherry-pick the necessary lld fixes, but that still leaves the second problem:

- 32-bit static analysis builds still use a 32-bit LLVM toolchain because of bug 1429549, so lld-link OOMs on libxul.

So, if ever one day we throw The Big Switch and `export LINKER=lld-link` in the common Windows mozconfigs, the static analysis builders will be busted.

To avoid this I propose to explicitly `export LINKER=link` in the static analysis mozconfigs, regardless of what the common Windows config says.

Comment 1

[(Away)]

Attachment: Always use link.exe in Windows static analysis builds

This is all the files that --enable-clang-plugin. (I'm not entirely clear why we have separate clang, clang-debug, and debug-static-analysis!)

Comment 2

[Nathan Froyd [:froydnj]]

Comment on attachment 8964298 [details] [diff] [review]
Always use link.exe in Windows static analysis builds

Review of attachment 8964298 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

WFM.  I don't recall why we have separate files either; I think I might have wanted separate static-analysis mozconfig files at one point, rather than piggybacking on top of the normal clang builds.  But obviously we don't do that anymore, so I am confused about the existence of separate files.

Comment 3

[Pulsebot]

Pushed by [e-mail]:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/200f42e5b1e7
Always use link.exe in Windows static analysis builds. r=froydnj

Comment 4

[Dorel Luca [:dluca]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/200f42e5b1e7

Comment 5

[(not currently active) Ted Mielczarek]

(In reply to Nathan Froyd [:froydnj] from comment #2)
> WFM.  I don't recall why we have separate files either; I think I might have
> wanted separate static-analysis mozconfig files at one point, rather than
> piggybacking on top of the normal clang builds.  But obviously we don't do
> that anymore, so I am confused about the existence of separate files.

I don't know either, and I'm too lazy to do the VCS history spelunking to try to figure it out (since I suspect the answer probably isn't explicitly listed anyway). I do know that when we initially setup cross-compiled Mac builds in TC we had both opt and static analysis versions, but they were both building the exact same thing so I made us turn off the static analysis ones. It does seem sensible that in CI anything building with clang might as well be building and using the clang plugin, so I don't think it makes sense to preserve this distinction.