weimingz added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D17741#364954, @thakis wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D17741#364931, @weimingz wrote: > > > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D17741#364756, @thakis wrote: > > > > > Instead of doing this, would it make sense to have a flag like > > > -ffile-basename that changes what __FILE__ expands to? > > > > > > I had wished I'd be able to have some control over __FILE__ (I'd like to > > > say "make all __FILE__s relative to this given directory for my use > > > case), and changing __FILE__ to something else in all the world's code > > > isn't easy – so maybe having a flag that provides some control over > > > __FILE__ instead of adding a separate macro would be a good idea. > > > > > > do you mean this? > > if source file is /a/b/c/d/foo.c and if -ffile-name-stem-remove=/a/b/c, > > then _FILE_ will be expanded to "d/foo.c" ? > > > Yes, something like that. Maybe it could look like > `-f__file__-expansion=basename` (to make __FILE__ expand to just the > basename, what you want), `-f__file__-expansion=relative-to:/a/b/c` to make > it relative to a given path. I think we can do this separately. A "basename" macro is easier for programmers to use and no build system change needed. http://reviews.llvm.org/D17741 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
