| Okay, I’ve attached a patch that adds the two subclasses of VerifyJobAction, which cleans up one of the rough edges in my original patch where I had to reach back into the Arguments to differentiate -verify-pch from -fsyntax-only. I also changed the name that -ccc-print-phases prints out from ‘verify’ to ‘verify-debug-info’ - I assume that’s okay, but if other tools are expecting the old name, we could change it back.
Ben |
use-verify-action.patch
Description: Binary data
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
Sounds reasonable, I’ll look into it.
Ben
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
