thieta added a comment. In D128409#3604460 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128409#3604460>, @hans wrote:
> I'm unfamiliar with -emit-ast. Can you add some background on what this is > for? What's CTU? CTU is cross translation unit. In this case the clang-static-analyzer can do analysis over several files - see the official docs that recommend that you build the .ast files with -emit-ast: https://clang.llvm.org/docs/analyzer/user-docs/CrossTranslationUnit.html#manual-ctu-analysis > In any case this needs a test. I can definitely add tests. What do you think needs a test here? that -emit-ast works the same with clang and clang-cl? Do we generally test the same arguments for all drivers even if they are expected to do the same thing? ================ Comment at: clang/lib/Driver/Driver.cpp:5629 + if ((JA.getType() == types::TY_Object || JA.getType() == types::TY_LTO_BC || + JA.getType() == types::TY_AST || JA.getType() == types::TY_Plist) && C.getArgs().hasArg(options::OPT__SLASH_Fo, options::OPT__SLASH_o)) { ---------------- hans wrote: > thieta wrote: > > I do wonder if this limitation here is really wanted. It makes clang-cl > > behave a bit different from clang/clang++. I can also split this part out > > in it's own commit if we feel like it's necessary. > What limitation are you referring to? For the clang-cl options `/Fo` and `/o` we limit the exactly what should be written out to that file with TY_Object, TY_LTO_BC etc. But for the `-o` option we just dump everything with a few exceptions: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/lib/Driver/Driver.cpp#L5534 I haven't analyzed this method that carefully - but it seems like for most users using `/o` should be more or less analogous to `-o`? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D128409/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D128409 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
