Thanks! Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 2, 2010, at 5:11 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Recommitted as r112915. I'm now passing "false" as the third parameter > to hasFlag: > > + // -fborland-extensions=0 is default. > + if (Args.hasFlag(options::OPT_fborland_extensions, > + options::OPT_fno_borland_extensions, false)) > + CmdArgs.push_back("-fborland-extensions"); > + > > How's that? > > -Dawn > > > On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 01:01:00PM -0700, Douglas Gregor wrote: >> >> On Sep 1, 2010, at 7:18 PM, Dawn Perchik wrote: >> >>> Author: dperchik >>> Date: Wed Sep 1 21:18:55 2010 >>> New Revision: 112797 >>> >>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=112797&view=rev >>> Log: >>> Reverting rev 112791 - apparently -fborland-extensions is on all the time?! >> >> This is a "gotcha" with hasFlag. Fix suggestion is below... >> >>> Modified: cfe/trunk/lib/Driver/Tools.cpp >>> URL: >>> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Driver/Tools.cpp?rev=112797&r1=112796&r2=112797&view=diff >>> ============================================================================== >>> --- cfe/trunk/lib/Driver/Tools.cpp (original) >>> +++ cfe/trunk/lib/Driver/Tools.cpp Wed Sep 1 21:18:55 2010 >>> @@ -1215,11 +1215,6 @@ >>> getToolChain().getTriple().getOS() == >>> llvm::Triple::Win32)) >>> CmdArgs.push_back("-fms-extensions"); >>> >>> - // -fborland-extensions=0 is default. >>> - if (Args.hasFlag(options::OPT_fborland_extensions, >>> - options::OPT_fno_borland_extensions)) >>> - CmdArgs.push_back("-fborland-extensions"); >> >> hasFlag has a third argument, which is a boolean that specifies the result >> of hasFlag if neither of the options is specified. It defaults to "true", >> which explains why -fborland-extensions was on all the time. >> >> I don't know if you'll want to add a new triple kind for Borland (e.g., so >> we can have a x86_64-borland-pc target triple), but this argument would be >> the place to tie Borland extensions to the triple. My guess is that, if >> you're going to implement the Borland C++ ABI, you'll want a triple to >> signal it. >> >> When you re-commit, could you intent the second line of the hasFlag call so >> that the two "options::"'s line up? >> >> - Doug _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
