OK. Patch LGTM. Renaming the option is trivial if someone suggests a better name on post commit review.
On 6 December 2013 05:21, Richard Sandiford <[email protected]> wrote: > Rafael Espíndola <[email protected]> writes: >> On 5 December 2013 13:06, David Peixotto <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> It seems a reasonable dev option to have. >>>> * Can you test that the file is deleted? >>> >>> Is there an easy way to test for this? I looked for another example >>> and could not find one. I can think of writing a test that executes a >>> compilation with that flag and -v, then looks to see if the output >>> file exists. I see a couple of issues with that test, however >>> >>> 1. It will only work for a specific target because it requires >>> compilation to complete (e.g. REQUIRES: arm-registered-target) >> >> Yes, that is what I had in mind, but you are right, it doesn't seem worth it. >> >> The option is fine by be, just wait a bit longer to see if there is >> more feedback. > > Not helpful feedback, sorry, but just a +1 for the patch. I'd resorted > to using a hacky wrapper script to test this locally but having a proper > option for it would be much more convenient. Thanks David! > > Richard > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
