================ Comment at: utils/check_cfc/check_cfc.py:87 @@ +86,3 @@ + pathlist = path_var.split(os.pathsep) + pathlist = [a for a in pathlist if os.path.normpath(os.path.normcase(a)) != os.path.normpath(os.path.normcase(directory))] + return os.pathsep.join(pathlist) ---------------- rafael wrote: > Would it be more idiomatic to use filter? > I think that depends who you ask. Google style guide prefers list comprehensions.
I've tried the filter and I think it looks clearer so I'll change it. ================ Comment at: utils/check_cfc/check_cfc.py:105 @@ +104,3 @@ + +def is_output_specified(args): + """Return true is output file is specified in args.""" ---------------- rafael wrote: > This is just get_output_file != None, no? Not quite, as get_output_file() derives something from the input file if there is no -o. However I can see that there's some duplication here so I've refactored it so this can be done and it saves some code. ================ Comment at: utils/check_cfc/check_cfc.py:250 @@ +249,3 @@ + # Compare disassembly (returns first diff if differs) + difference = obj_diff.compare_object_files(self._output_file_a, output_file_b) + if difference: ---------------- rafael wrote: > This could be a bit more strict. For example, data sections should also not > change. > > How about comparing all sections that are present in both files? > That's a good idea. I think that the obj_diff needs to provide different kinds of comparison (code, data, debug, byte for byte etc.) that a check can choose between. Are you happy for me to treat this as an enhancement and I'll work out the best way to do this? http://reviews.llvm.org/D8723 EMAIL PREFERENCES http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
