Looks good.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]>wrote: > Ping? > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Reid Kleckner <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Reid Kleckner <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > --- include/clang/AST/ASTConsumer.h (revision 182601) > >>> > +++ include/clang/AST/ASTConsumer.h (working copy) > >>> > @@ -92,6 +92,12 @@ > >>> > /// only exists to support Microsoft's #pragma comment(linker, > >>> > "/foo"). > >>> > virtual void HandleLinkerOptionPragma(llvm::StringRef Opts) {} > >>> > > >>> > + /// \brief Handle a pragma that emits a mismatch identifier and > value > >>> > to > >>> > the > >>> > + /// object file for the linker to work with. Currently, this only > >>> > exists > >>> > to > >>> > + /// support Microsoft's #pragma detect_mismatch. > >>> > + virtual void HandleDetectMismatch(llvm::StringRef Name, > >>> > + llvm::StringRef Value) {} > >>> > + > >>> > > >>> > Should we avoid broadening the ASTConsumer interface? If we lowered > the > >>> > option in Sema, then we could reuse HandleLinkerOptionPragma() > without > >>> > too > >>> > much fuss. But then we're doing codegen-like work in Sema. I'd > like a > >>> > second opinion on this. If we can do this in Sema, we can eliminate > a > >>> > lot > >>> > of the plumbing for this and for #pragma comment(lib). > >>> > >>> I had originally done it that way, but wasn't overly keen on it. We > >>> could reuse the TargetInfo behavior for getting the proper linker > >>> options, but it seemed like a layering violation. > >> > >> > >> Yeah, we'd have to use some Target interface outside of CodeGen, but I > don't > >> see anything obvious. > >> > >> Perhaps we should continue full steam ahead on this route and refactor > at a > >> later date. > > > > I don't think the current approach is particularly heinous, just > > verbose. I'd be fine sticking with this route for now. But if > > someone has a better idea as to how to structure this so we could get > > more reusable machinery out of it, I'd be happy to attempt it as well. > > > > ~Aaron >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
