hans added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Driver/Job.cpp:347
+ StringRef DriverExe = llvm::sys::path::stem(D.ClangExecutable);
+ if (CommandExe.equals_lower(DriverExe))
+ CC1Main = Driver::CC1Main;
----------------
aganea wrote:
> hans wrote:
> > Now that we're not calling main() anymore, but cc1 directly -- is this
> > checking still necessary?
> Yes it is - see my other comment just above.
>
> The driver builds phases that do not always call the cc1 process. Simply
> stating `clang a.cpp` would invoke `clang -cc1`, then the linker, say
> `link.exe`. In this later case (invoking `link.exe`), even if we have
> `Driver::Main` it doesn't mean we should use it. There are a number of other
> edge cases of the same kind, such as `/fallback` or building cuda files,
> where a different executable is invoked along the way."
Okay, but couldn't we find a cleaner way of figuring out that the Command is a
cc1 invocation? The thing that creates the Command would know.. maybe it could
set a flag or something? Or maybe instead of creating a Command it would create
something else?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Driver/Job.cpp:337
- if (ResponseFile == nullptr) {
+ Driver::CC1ToolFunc CC1Main = nullptr;
+
----------------
I think it would be clearer with a boolean "CallCC1" or something instead of a
function pointer.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D69825/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D69825
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
