I'd probably split it into two subclasses of Verify. Or split out adding a new tool name based on compile time option and adding each action with the specific tool based on the command line.
Sorry for terseness, on a phone on a bus. If you need more I'll try to get it in a bit. On Feb 5, 2014 3:29 PM, "Ben Langmuir" <[email protected]> wrote: > So would the change you're envisioning be to subclass VerifyJobAction > and/or add a new ActionClass? All of the other ActionClasses are > unambiguous in what tool they need. > > Ben > > On Feb 5, 2014, at 2:35 PM, Ben Langmuir <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sounds reasonable, I'll look into it. > > Ben > > On Feb 5, 2014, at 2:33 PM, Eric Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > > The idea was that the hook could be used for any verification, just a > specific one of debug at the moment. It can easily be changed to support > more verifications (and should). :) > > -eric > On Feb 5, 2014 2:32 PM, "Ben Langmuir" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Feb 5, 2014, at 11:00 AM, Eric Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Out of curiosity would it work to have this as a Verify action rather >> > than a Compile action that has no output? >> > >> > -eric >> >> VerifyJobAction seems to be specific to verifying debug information. >> Perhaps that should change? Or maybe it should be renamed to >> VerifyDebugInfoJobAction? I'm not sure. >> >> Ben > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
