sammccall accepted this revision.
sammccall added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thanks! just nits, apart from the "-target already explicitly set" issue Kadir
raised.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/QueryDriverDatabase.cpp:99
+ }
+ if (!Info.Target.empty())
+ break;
----------------
I'm not sure these early returns are worth the complexity
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/QueryDriverDatabase.cpp:102
+ LLVM_FALLTHROUGH;
+ case IncludesExtracted:
+ if (Line.trim().startswith(TS)) {
----------------
also not sure whether initial vs includesextracted is worth distinguishing -
this doesn't scale well if we add a third thing we're tracking (do we need a
state for each combination that we could have seen already?)
Maybe just a bool for SeenIncludes or something to detect duplicate/missing
sections would be simpler
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/QueryDriverDatabase.cpp:106
+ TargetLine.consume_front(TS);
+ // Use only valid target
+ if (!isValidTarget(TargetLine)) {
----------------
this mostly echoes the code: "Only detect targets that clang understands"?
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/QueryDriverDatabase.cpp:108
+ if (!isValidTarget(TargetLine)) {
+ vlog("Invalid target \"{0}\", ignoring", TargetLine);
+ break;
----------------
I'd prefix with "System include extraction: " and bump up to elog - this is
fairly likely to break things (and we'll only log it ~once thanks to caching)
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/QueryDriverDatabase.cpp:112
+ Info.Target = TargetLine.str();
+ vlog("Target extracted: \"{0}\"", TargetLine);
+ }
----------------
also add a prefix here so it's clear what the context is in the log
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/QueryDriverDatabase.cpp:227
+ if (!Info->SystemIncludes.empty())
+ log("System includes extractor: successfully executed {0}, got includes: "
+ "\"{1}\"",
----------------
we want to log this even if the set is empty, so the reader can tell the
extraction worked
(it's fine to only optionally log target)
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/QueryDriverDatabase.cpp:231
+ if (!Info->Target.empty())
+ log("Target extractor: successfully executed {0}, got target: "
+ "\"{1}\"",
----------------
The target extractor isn't a separate component from the system includes
extractor, so the log message seems a bit misleading.
I'd suggest just using "System includes extractor" for both, even if it's not
totally accurate
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/QueryDriverDatabase.cpp:212
+ if (!Target.empty()) {
+ Cmd.CommandLine.push_back("-target");
+ Cmd.CommandLine.push_back(Target);
----------------
kadircet wrote:
> ArcsinX wrote:
> > ArcsinX wrote:
> > > kadircet wrote:
> > > > sammccall wrote:
> > > > > `clang -target foo test.cc` seems to be a hard error in the driver if
> > > > > the target is unknown.
> > > > > (vs likely *some* functionality if we just didn't set the driver)
> > > > >
> > > > > so this could regress some scenarios. Can we mitigate that?
> > > > > (It's possible that we're running the driver in a mode where we
> > > > > proceed anyway, but I can't remember :-()
> > > > what if target already exists in `Cmd`?
> > > >
> > > > also it would be nice to use `--target=X` format to be consistent with
> > > > target inference from invocation name as in
> > > > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/clang/lib/Tooling/Tooling.cpp#L278.
> > > I failed to find options to process in case of invalid target, so added
> > > target validation.
> > We could specify several --target options, the last one will be used. But I
> > am not sure should we override existing or not.
> > We could specify several --target options, the last one will be used. But I
> > am not sure should we override existing or not.
>
> Having multiple targets sounds confusing. I would prefer keeping a target
> specifically mentioned by the user but it is also possible for the target to
> be inferred by clang (and that might be wrong). This is similar to our stand
> against predefined macros though, i think we should fix clang's inference
> logic if it has any false positives. So i am slightly leaning towards not
> overriding the target if it exists.
I think the question of "target already explicitly set" should probably be
answered.
Checking for an arg equal to "-target" or beginning with "--target" is probably
enough.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D92012/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D92012
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
