On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Nick Lewycky <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 16 March 2015 at 18:06, Justin Bogner <[email protected]> wrote: > >> David Blaikie <[email protected]> writes: >> > On Mar 16, 2015 4:57 PM, "Justin Bogner" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Author: bogner >> >> Date: Mon Mar 16 18:52:21 2015 >> >> New Revision: 232439 >> >> >> >> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=232439&view=rev >> >> Log: >> >> GCOV: Expose the -coverage-exit-block-before-body flag in clang -cc1 >> >> >> >> This exposes the optional exit block placement logic from r232438 as a >> >> clang -cc1 option. There is a test on the llvm side, but there isn't >> >> really a way to inspect the gcov options from clang to test it here as >> >> well. >> > >> > I'm missing something probably - what's the benefit of that over just >> using >> > -mllvm to pass this flag to llvm directly? (If I'm remembering how this >> stuff >> > works) >> >> I'm not sure - I was matching the -coverage-cfg-checksum and >> -coverage-no-function-names-in-data CC1 options here. Maybe Nick has >> thoughts? >> > > LLVM flags are global state which will carry from one TU to the next. > Suppose you want to use clang as a library, and you want to pass flags for > one TU, then parse another TU with different flags. It is an error to set > the same LLVM flag twice, so that will terminate your program. In general > the -mllvm flags are bad news and we should get rid of all of them and > certainly not add new ones. > I figured this flag was just as a utility for experiments - if it was for more than experiments I would imagine it'd need to come up to a frontend option, not just a -cc1 option, no? - David > > Nick >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
