DavidSpickett accepted this revision. DavidSpickett added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM ================ Comment at: clang/test/Driver/arm-target-as-mimplicit-it.s:26 +/// assembler flag appearing last (latter wins). +// RUN: %clang -target arm-linux-gnueabi -### -mimplicit-it=never -Wa,-mimplicit-it=always %S/Inputs/wildcard1.c 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=NEVER_ALWAYS +// RUN: %clang -target arm-linux-gnueabi -### -mimplicit-it=always -Wa,-mimplicit-it=never %S/Inputs/wildcard1.c 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=ALWAYS_NEVER ---------------- nickdesaulniers wrote: > DavidSpickett wrote: > > I'm confused why this generates two `-arm-implicit-it`. > > > > I'd expect that: > > A c file only uses the compiler's argument > > An assembler file uses the compiler and assembler argument, with the > > assembler argument last > > > > Are we calling CollectArgsForIntegratedAssembler even for a C file? > I don't think this is an issue. > > > I'm confused why this generates two -arm-implicit-it. > > If you check the implementation of `CollectArgsForIntegratedAssembler`, it > will call my added helper (`AddARMImplicitITArgs`) for `-mimplicit-it=`, then > check for `-Wa,-implicit-it=`. If both are present, then both will be > generated for the assembler, with the latter taking preference. > > > Are we calling CollectArgsForIntegratedAssembler even for a C file? > > Yes. Unless `-no-integrated-as` or `-S` was used, we need to be able to > modify how assembler is handled both in generating it from C code, but also > for inline assembly that may be in a C source. Right, I forgot about the inline assembly scenario. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D96285/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D96285 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
