tra added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Tooling/Tooling.cpp:117
// The one job we find should be to invoke clang again.
const auto &Cmd = cast<driver::Command>(*Jobs.begin());
if (StringRef(Cmd.getCreator().getName()) != "clang") {
----------------
hliao wrote:
> tra wrote:
> > hliao wrote:
> > > tra wrote:
> > > > Is this still the right job for us to pick? I think we want this to be
> > > > the host compilation.
> > > >
> > > > As things are right now my guess is that we're probably picking the
> > > > first device-side compilation.
> > > yes, OffloadAction is appended to the original host action. The
> > > corresponding first job is the host compilation. The frontend has similar
> > > handling in `lib/Frontend/CreateInvocationFromCommandLine.cpp`
> > Can we add an assert or diagnostics for that? I think the check below would
> > not always be able to tell if it unintentionally picked a wrong kind of job.
> It seems to me that the `cast<>` and check against "clang" @ L118 already did
> what I asked.
Device-side compilation would also use clang, so the check for `clang` is
insufficient for ensuring that it's a *host* compilation.
Furthermore, the order of jobs *will* change depending on whether
-fsyntax-only is in effect.
@klimek -- Manuel, Is tooling allowed to create an invocation w/o
`-fsyntax-only`? AFAICT, `runToolOnCodeWithArgs` always adds it, but one could
technically create an `Invocation` without it.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D68660/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D68660
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
