Build llvm Debug/Release for Windows.

[deadlocklogic]

No description provided.

[tritao]

I think it's probably time to drop the 32-bit LLVM builds and just move to 64-bit builds only. Any thoughts on that?

We also don't need both the RelWithDebInfo and Release builds, I think it's enough to go with the RelWithDebInfo.

[deadlocklogic]

Personally I never encounter 32 bit architecture in my daily usage, so I don't mind using 64 bit exclusively.
Now in my experience I notice that the Release builds have better performance than RelWithDebInfo, but not that much thought.
Does it bother to build these artifacts anyway, as it is just a flag passed to the build system.

By the way, the build script is sometimes behaving weirdly, so I have to edit the lua script to pass the path of the llvm artifact.

[tritao]

Personally I never encounter 32 bit architecture in my daily usage, so I don't mind using 64 bit exclusively. Now in my experience I notice that the Release builds have better performance than RelWithDebInfo, but not that much thought. Does it bother to build these artifacts anyway, as it is just a flag passed to the build system.

Does not really bother me, just seems unnecessary to build both since in theory the performance should be the same. Interesting that you can notice any difference in your case, I would expect the generated code to be exactly the same, besides the inclusion of a separate pdb file.

The only concern is the storage that keeping all these builds around takes on GitHub, I am already half expecting to get some kind of notice one of these days due to all the space we take for the past builds here: https://github.com/mono/CppSharp/releases/tag/CppSharp

By the way, the build script is sometimes behaving weirdly, so I have to edit the lua script to pass the path of the llvm artifact.

Ok, any more details about that?

[tritao]

New build going on: https://github.com/mono/CppSharp/actions/runs/7183677193

After it finishes, and assuming no further problems, we can add it to the releases page above and it will be usable from CppSharp build scripts.

[deadlocklogic]

Looks good, I will try native debugging on windows and see what goes on.

[tritao]

This is now uploaded to the assets list, test away 😄

[deadlocklogic]

@tritao I tried building in Debug mode, now tests fail while building with: Assertion failed!: Could not get base CXX record from type.
I wonder why it so difficult to use Debug on Windows, basically how are you managing to develop and debug the project?
There must be something messed-up going on:

static clang::CXXRecordDecl* GetCXXRecordDeclFromBaseType(const clang::QualType& Ty)
{
    using namespace clang;

    if (auto RT = Ty->getAs<clang::RecordType>())
        return dyn_cast<clang::CXXRecordDecl>(RT->getDecl());
    else if (auto TST = Ty->getAs<clang::TemplateSpecializationType>())
        return GetCXXRecordDeclFromTemplateName(TST->getTemplateName());
    else if (auto Injected = Ty->getAs<clang::InjectedClassNameType>())
        return Injected->getDecl();

    assert(0 && "Could not get base CXX record from type");
    return nullptr;
}

Asserting and then returning nullptr???
Then:

auto CXXBase = GetCXXRecordDeclFromBaseType(Base.getType());
if (!CXXBase || !HasLayout(CXXBase))
    return false;

We shouldn't even test for nullptr as the assertion guarantees that the result is non null. So right here the behavior in release mode while looking correct, is just a side effect!