> ================ > Comment at: lib/Basic/Targets.cpp:87 > @@ -86,3 +86,3 @@ > > static void getDarwinDefines(MacroBuilder &Builder, const LangOptions &Opts, > const llvm::Triple &Triple, > ---------------- > Rafael Ávila de Espíndola wrote: >> Should this be MachODefines now? > Almost certainly longer-term. I've taken a lighter hand to the code in > lib/Basic/Targets.cpp for now. It could probably do with a much more thorough > overhaul along the lines of lib/Driver, but for now it looks mostly generic.
OK. > ================ > Comment at: lib/Driver/Driver.cpp:382 > @@ -383,1 +381,3 @@ > + // MachO targets this uses the driver-driver and universal actions. > + if (TC.getTriple().isOSBinFormatMachO()) > BuildUniversalActions(C->getDefaultToolChain(), C->getArgs(), > ---------------- > Rafael Ávila de Espíndola wrote: >> Really? Why do you need a driver driver for? Are you building a fat binary >> for an embedded system? > I'm not, but you never know what closeted developers will get up to. > > My thinking was that the driver-driver (& generally fat binaries) are more of > an Apple platform feature than a Darwin target one: the linker and other > tools will let you do it, no matter how unwise it might be. I see. I also realized people might be using a single -arch option for convenience. We could implement a single -arch as a special case without the driver driver, but it is not clear if it is profitable to do so. I am taking a second look at the updated patch. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
