On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Nico Weber <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Hans Wennborg <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Nico Weber <[email protected]> wrote: >> > That's much nicer, thanks. I couldn't figure out how to alias a clang-cl >> > option to a cc1 option, so I added 4 lines to explicitly translate >> > OPT__SLASH_Zc_trigraphs to -ftrigraphs, but it's still much simpler. >> >> Hmm, that's a little annoying, but I guess it makes sense.. the >> clang-cl flags are handled as Driver flags so aliasing to a CC1 >> doesn't work. >> >> Perhaps we should just stick to the existing -trigraphs and add a >> -no-trigraphs driver flag? lgtm either way I guess. >> > > Richard, are you okay with adding a -no-trigraphs gcc-driver-level flag? > gcc doesn't have this, but several people on the internet are asking for > this feature (I searched for `gcc "no-trigraphs"`). I'd like a way to build > with -std=c++11 (i.e. not gnu++11) but still not enable trigraphs myself, > too. > I'd prefer to add -ftrigraphs and -fno-trigraphs to the driver, and make -trigraphs an alias for -ftrigraphs. Other than that, I think this is a good idea. > > I also used the same technique to map /Zc:strictStrings to >> > -Werror=c++11-compat-deprecated-writable-strings while here. >> >> Nice. >> >> > (Disabling trigraphs in -fms-compatibility mode for the gcc driver makes >> > sense to me too, but I think that should happen in a different patch.) >> >> > Property changes on: test/Driver/cl-zc.cpp >> > ___________________________________________________________________ >> > Added: svn:eol-style >> > ## -0,0 +1 ## >> > +LF >> >> Is this intentional? >> >> >> > On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 4:36 AM, Hans Wennborg <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> I would have broken out /Zc:trigraphs[-] into two separate CLFlag >> >> options instead. >> >> >> >> That way we don't need parser code for it, the flags can have >> >> individual help texts, and they can just be aliases to the cc1 flags. >> >> >> >> Also, instead of passing -fno-trigraphs each time, maybe we should >> >> change the default in CompilerInvocation based on the language >> >> options. It seems we currently disable them in gnu mode for example. >> >> Maybe we should do the same if -fms-extensions or -fms-compatibility >> >> if enabled? >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Nico Weber <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > Thanks! All done. >> >> > >> >> > On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Richard Smith < >> [email protected]> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 6:08 PM, Nico Weber <[email protected]> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Forgot to say: Fixes PR21974. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Nico Weber <[email protected]> >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Hi, >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> the attached patch disables trigraphs by default in clang-cl >> mode. To >> >> >>>> do >> >> >>>> so, I'm renaming the cc1 trigraph flag to -ftrigraphs, and I'm >> adding >> >> >>>> a >> >> >>>> -fno-trigraphs flag. (This requires updating a handful of cc1 >> tests, >> >> >>>> and >> >> >>>> translating -trigraphs to -ftrigraphs in the driver.) >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> The driver grows parsing logic for /Zc:, everything other than >> >> >>>> trigraphs >> >> >>>> is ignored for now. (We probably want to implement at least >> >> >>>> /Zc:inline at >> >> >>>> some point, which is why I added parsing code for this instead of >> >> >>>> always >> >> >>>> sending -fno-trigraphs to cc1 in clang-cl mode.) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -def trigraphs : Flag<["-", "--"], "trigraphs">, Flags<[CC1Option]>, >> >> >> +def trigraphs : Flag<["-", "--"], "trigraphs">, >> Flags<[DriverOption]>, >> >> >> >> >> >> I don't think DriverOption is right here; that means we don't >> forward >> >> >> the >> >> >> flag to a gcc invocation. Now, we never invoke GCC for C-like >> languages >> >> >> any >> >> >> more, but if we did, this would be wrong (and for all I know, it's >> >> >> wrong for >> >> >> Fortran...). You should be able to just drop the Flags. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> if (Arg *A = Args.getLastArg(options::OPT_std_EQ, >> >> >> options::OPT_ansi, >> >> >> - options::OPT_trigraphs)) >> >> >> - if (A != Std) >> >> >> + options::OPT_trigraphs)) { >> >> >> + if (A->getOption().matches(options::OPT_trigraphs)) >> >> >> + CmdArgs.push_back("-ftrigraphs"); >> >> >> + else if (A != Std) >> >> >> A->render(Args, CmdArgs); >> >> >> >> >> >> Std here is Args.getLastArg(options::OPT_std_EQ, >> options::OPT_ansi), so >> >> >> your 'else if' clause is unreachable. Something like this would be >> >> >> simpler >> >> >> and more obvious: >> >> >> >> >> >> // If -trigraphs appears after the language standard flag, honor it. >> >> >> if (Args.getLastArg(options::OPT_std_EQ, options::OPT_ansi, >> >> >> options::OPT_trigraphs) != Std) >> >> >> CmdArgs.push_back("-ftrigraphs"); >> >> >> >> >> >> You could even sink this below the 'if (Std)' block to avoid >> >> >> duplicating >> >> >> it between the cases where we do and don't have a Std flag. >> >> >> >> >> >>>> Ok? >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Nico >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >> >>> cfe-commits mailing list >> >> >>> [email protected] >> >> >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >> >> >>> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > cfe-commits mailing list >> >> > [email protected] >> >> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
