On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Chris Lattner <[email protected]> wrote: > On Apr 7, 2011, at 2:42 PM, nobled wrote: >> I'm working on a patch series to extend clang to parse GLSL, and I >> came up with these generic cleanups along the way -- the GLSL patches >> depend on the last three, at least, going in first. > > This is scary to me and doesn't seem like a good thing for Clang to do, but > the cleanups sound fine. > >> ==== >> 2. refactor -ccc-gcc-name code >> >> Put the logic for deciding the default name for gcc/g++ >> in the only place that actually cares about it. >> >> This also pushes an ifdef out of the generic driver code >> to a little further down, when the target is actually known. >> Hopefully it can be changed into just a runtime check >> in the future. > > Seems nice, go for it. > >> ==== >> 3. refactor flags for TokenKinds.def >> >> Make KEYALL a combination of all other flags instead >> of its own separate flag. Also rewrite the enum >> definitions in hex instead of decimal. > > Ok.
Thanks; committed these as r129212 and 129213. > >> ==== >> 4. complete TokenKinds.def documentation >> >> It was missing a description of BOOLSUPPORT. > > I just committed this before I realized that you have commit access. > >> ==== >> 5. generalize number parsing for directives other than #line >> >> This makes way for sharing code with GLSL's #version directive. > > I don't think that this is a cleanup. It adds generality for something that > Clang doesn't need. The GLSL grammar is only vaguely related to C, why does > cramming a GLSL parser into Clang make sense? You're probably right - never mind the last patch. At this point I'm mostly just experimenting to see if it's even feasible, which from what you say it won't be; but it's also helping to familiarize myself with the codebase better. > > -Chris > > > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
