anemet added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D37196#868320, @vivekvpandya wrote:
> > Why? That was inside BackendConsumer.
>
> I was getting incomplete type error.
You may have to move the class declaration of ClangDiagnosticHandler before the
BackendConsumer and move the definition of
ClangDiagnosticHandler::handleDiagnositic out of line since that is where you
use BackendConsumer. Something like:
class BackendConsumer;
class ClangDiagnosticHandler {
public:
... // as before
bool handleDiagnostics(const DiagnosticInfo &DI) override;
...
private:
...
}
class BackendConsumer {
...
}
bool ClangDiagnosticHandler::handleDiagnostics(const DiagnosticInfo &DI) {
...
}
>> You can just save the old DiagHandler object instead.
>
> I don't think now we need to do that as per my understanding CodeGen i.e
> emitting LLVM IR is last phase in clang which will pass control to
> LLVMContext. LLVMContext will have Base class of DiagnosticHandler which will
> not handle diagnostic and return false so LLVMContext::diagnose() will print
> diagnostic with
>
> DiagnosticPrinterRawOStream DP(errs());
>
> errs() << getDiagnosticMessagePrefix(DI.getSeverity()) << ": ";
> DI.print(DP);
> errs() << "\n";
>
>
> and clang's diagnostic handler also does similar thing so if we keep
> ClangDiagnosticHandler pointer in LLVMContext it should not break.
That would have been true even before and we still restored it, no? I guess I
am not sure why we used to restore this so I would just do it regardless and
not change functionality.
If you want we can separately take a look whether we need to restore these
original handlers.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D37196
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
