On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Reid Kleckner <[email protected]> wrote:
> Author: rnk > Date: Tue Sep 3 20:37:22 2013 > New Revision: 189901 > > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=189901&view=rev > Log: > clang-cl: Avoid confusing diagnostics when clang-cl is called just cl.exe > > Modified: > cfe/trunk/tools/driver/driver.cpp > > Modified: cfe/trunk/tools/driver/driver.cpp > URL: > http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/tools/driver/driver.cpp?rev=189901&r1=189900&r2=189901&view=diff > > ============================================================================== > --- cfe/trunk/tools/driver/driver.cpp (original) > +++ cfe/trunk/tools/driver/driver.cpp Tue Sep 3 20:37:22 2013 > @@ -346,7 +346,14 @@ int main(int argc_, const char **argv_) > // DiagnosticOptions instance. > TextDiagnosticPrinter *DiagClient > = new TextDiagnosticPrinter(llvm::errs(), &*DiagOpts); > - DiagClient->setPrefix(llvm::sys::path::filename(Path)); > + > + // If the clang binary happens to be named cl.exe for compatibility > reasons, > + // use clang-cl.exe as the prefix to avoid confusion between clang and > MSVC. > + StringRef ExeBasename(llvm::sys::path::filename(Path)); > + if (ExeBasename.trim().equals_lower("cl.exe")) > + ExeBasename = "clang-cl.exe"; > Seems unfortunate to use a bogus (possibly non-existent) filename. Maybe "clang cl.exe" so it looks less like we're claiming this was the executable name? Also, is it feasible to add a test for this? > + DiagClient->setPrefix(ExeBasename); > + > IntrusiveRefCntPtr<DiagnosticIDs> DiagID(new DiagnosticIDs()); > > DiagnosticsEngine Diags(DiagID, &*DiagOpts, DiagClient); > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
