plotfi added a comment. In D60974#1565577 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D60974#1565577>, @jfb wrote:
> Looking at the code quickly, I'm not sure that this should be in clang > itself. It sounds like a better fit for a clang-based tool, and not clang. > Why does it need to be part of clang? @jfb I think this could actually be refactored into a clang based tool come to think of it, but I am also looking at how to add some features to the driver so that it can support job pipelines that are different from the standard PP -> CC1 -> BE -> ASM -> LINK pipeline. I can work on a change once I sort out this pipeline work to move the interface generation into a clang tool so that instead of invoking clang -cc1 to generate the interfaces the clang driver invokes the new clang interface generation tool. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D60974/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D60974 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
