On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 4:32 AM, Mahesha HS <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Eli, > > Thanks for all your comments. > > I have taken care of all your review comments. Yes, after I gone > through your review > comments, I also came to the conclusion that the addition of a new > class for OpenMP > pragma handling (class PragmaOmpHandler) is not necessarily required. > However, initially, when started, I my-self had an opinion that this > class may required. > Now, I removed this class, and moved the omp pragma registration directly into > Preprocessor class. > > I have attached following two patches along with this mail. The > patches also contains > relevant *test cases*. > > patch 1: fopenmp_option_support.patch > patch 2: omp_pragma_registration.patch > > In patch 1, I have taken care of all your earlier review comments > related to -fopenmp option > support. Patch 2 contains the implementation for the omp pragma > registration with > Preprocessor. > > Following files are changed respectively. > > patch 1: > ------------ > #. clang/include/clang/Driver/Options.td > #. clang/include/clang/Basic/LangOptions.def > #. clang/lib/Driver/Tools.cpp > #. clang/lib/Frontend/CompilerInvocation.cpp > #. clang/test/Driver/clang_fopenmp_opt.c
+// RUN: %clang -S -v -o %t %s 2>&1 | not grep -w -- -fopenmp +// RUN: %clang -S -v -o %t %s -fopenmp 2>&1 | grep -w -- -fopenmp We usually prefer to write tests like this using "-###" instead of "-v". Otherwise, patch 1 looks fine. -Eli _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
