thakis marked an inline comment as done.
thakis added inline comments.

================
Comment at: clang/lib/Driver/ToolChains/Clang.cpp:3564
+    ArgStringList DummyArgs;
+    CollectArgsForIntegratedAssembler(C, Args, DummyArgs, D,
+                                      TC.useIntegratedAs());
----------------
thakis wrote:
> rnk wrote:
> > I think it would be better to use ClaimAllArgs here. If you look around in 
> > this code, there's a fair amount of stuff like this:
> > ```
> >   if (KernelOrKext) {
> >     // -mkernel and -fapple-kext imply no exceptions, so claim exception 
> > related
> >     // arguments now to avoid warnings about unused arguments.
> >     Args.ClaimAllArgs(options::OPT_fexceptions);
> >     Args.ClaimAllArgs(options::OPT_fno_exceptions);
> >     Args.ClaimAllArgs(options::OPT_fobjc_exceptions);
> >     Args.ClaimAllArgs(options::OPT_fno_objc_exceptions);
> >     Args.ClaimAllArgs(options::OPT_fcxx_exceptions);
> >     Args.ClaimAllArgs(options::OPT_fno_cxx_exceptions);
> >     return;
> >   }
> > ```
> > It repeats the knowledge of which flags are passed to the assembler (looks 
> > like 5), but it is consistent with what's already done.
> I think that's worse for this use case here: In addition of having to 
> duplicate the flags, the flag parsing error output (for integrated as) is 
> then again dependent on if we actually run the assembler, which is the same 
> kind of inconsistency that this change is fixing.
I uploaded a patch for the approach you suggested to 
https://reviews.llvm.org/D65233 . It's ~20 (non-whitespace) lines of code, 
while this patch is ~10 lines (it looks like more because phab doesn't 
highlight whitespace-only changes well.)

I like this patch more, but let me know which one you'd like me to land.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D65108/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D65108



_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to