On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Andrea Di Biagio <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi Reid, > > thanks for the very useful feedback and sorry for the late reply... > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 4:18 AM, Reid Kleckner <[email protected]> wrote: > > Whoops, missed this over vacation. My intention was to conditionalize > this > > on the driver mode, i.e. clang-cl or gcc-style, but that computation > happens > > further down, so I never got to this. > > > > The big question is, which syntax does mingw gcc understand? If it's the > > libiberty style escaping, then the ifdef won't work, since clang could be > > either mingw gcc or MSVC's cl depending on argv[0]. > > So, I just tried mingw (mingw32-gcc - gcc version 4.8.1) on a windows host. > Unfortunately, when expanding response files, mingw seems to > understand a different syntax than MSVC's cl. > That's what I expected. We can't really parse command line flags until we've expanded response files, so we don't know if we're targeting mingw or not. Our best approximation is the driver mode: clang-cl vs. gcc/g++. Is this enough for your usage, or do you need to use the gcc frontend with Windows-style response files? We could attempt to parse the command line before expanding response files to look for --target=. Then we could use gnu tokenization only if the triple isOSCygMing().
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
