AMDChirag added inline comments.
================
Comment at: flang/lib/Frontend/CompilerInvocation.cpp:88-95
+// Tweak the frontend configuration based on the frontend action
+static void setUpFrontendBasedOnAction(FrontendOptions &opts) {
+ assert(opts.programAction_ != Fortran::frontend::InvalidAction &&
+ "Fortran frontend action not set!");
+
+ if (opts.programAction_ == DebugDumpParsingLog)
+ opts.instrumentedParse_ = true;
----------------
awarzynski wrote:
> AMDChirag wrote:
> > Will this function be extended in the future?
> > If not, an entirely separate function for a couple statements seems rather
> > overkill.
> > Will this function be extended in the future?
>
> Yes.
>
> Ideally we'd want _features_ and _actions_ to be orthogonal and to be
> controlled by dedicated flags. In this patch, we are adding an _action_ flag
> that toggles a _feature_ option. I think that that's a bit counter-intuitive,
> but not uncommon or unavoidable long-term.
>
> Instead of adding comments, I prefer to introduce a dedicated method for this
> logic. It will make it easier for us to keep it in one place when new options
> like this are added. Also, `ParseFrontendArgs` is already quite long and is
> only going to get longer.
>
> Having said all that, we may decide in the future that there's a better way
> to split this logic. For now I mostly want to avoid extending
> `ParseFrontendArgs` too much.
Fair, thank you for explaining!
In such case, shouldn't the function call `setUpFrontendBasedOnAction(opts);`
be placed after all the fields of the `opts` variable have been set?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D97457/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D97457
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
