benlangmuir added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Frontend/CompilerInvocation.cpp:4324
+ if (Epoch.getAsInteger(10, V) || V > MaxTimestamp) {
Diags.Report(diag::err_fe_invalid_source_date_epoch)
<< Epoch << MaxTimestamp;
----------------
benlangmuir wrote:
> MaskRay wrote:
> > Is it worth making `err_fe_invalid_source_date_epoch` a driver diagnostic?
> > I think driver validation is more common.
> I wasn't sure if we could just move the validation to the driver or if we
> would end up duplicating it -- how bad is it to have a value that's too
> large? If it could cause UB or something I wouldn't want to remove the check
> from the frontend.
I kept the validation in the frontend for now but happy to iterate on this if
you'd like.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Driver/SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH.c:2
+// RUN: %clang -E %s -### 2>&1 | FileCheck %s -check-prefix=NO_EPOCH
+// NO_EPOCH-NOT: source-date-epoch
+
----------------
MaskRay wrote:
> In case someone put the build directory under a directory with the string
> `-source-date-epoch`, even if it is highly unlikely.
Fair point, done!
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D136717/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D136717
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
