Updated the comment and committed as r200938. Ben
On Feb 6, 2014, at 10:52 AM, Eric Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > // Verify the output (debug information only for now). > if (Args.hasArg(options::OPT_verify_debug_info)) { > - ActionList VerifyInputs; > - VerifyInputs.push_back(Actions.back()); > + Action *VerifyInput = Actions.back(); > > Might want to update that comment. > > Otherwise, looks fine. Thanks. > > -eric > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Ben Langmuir <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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 >> >> >> On Feb 5, 2014, at 3:39 PM, Eric Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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
