dexonsmith requested changes to this revision. dexonsmith added a comment. This revision now requires changes to proceed.
I like how this is coming together. I have a few comments inline. Also, I wonder if there should be a test for the new OptParser behaviour in `llvm/unittests/Option/`. ================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Driver/Options.td:1176 +defm reciprocal_math : OptInFFlag< "reciprocal-math", "Allow division operations to be reassociated", "", "", [], "LangOpts->AllowRecip">; +def fapprox_func : Flag<["-"], "fapprox-func">, Group<f_Group>, Flags<[CC1Option, NoDriverOption]>, + MarshallingInfoFlag<"LangOpts->ApproxFunc", "false">; ---------------- dang wrote: > Anastasia wrote: > > could this also be OptInFFlag? > The aim was to keep the driver semantics the same as before and this was not > something you could control with the driver, so I left it as just a CC1 flag. > However if it makes sense to be able to control this from the driver then we > can definitely make this `OptInFFLag`. I think adding a driver flag (if that's the right thing to do) should be done separately in a follow-up commit. Also for a separate commit: it would be a great improvement if you could have OptIn / OptOut flags that were `-cc1`-only (maybe `CC1OptInFFlag`). - Both `-fX` and `-fno-X` would be parsed by `-cc1` (and cancel each other out). - Only the non-default one would be generated when serializing to `-cc1` from `CompilerInvocation` (for `OptIn`, we'd never generate `-fno-X`). - Neither would be recognized by the driver. I suggest we might want that for most `-cc11` flags. This would make it easier to poke through the driver with `-Xclang` to override `-cc1` options the driver adds. Not something we want for end-users, but useful for debugging the compiler itself. Currently the workflow is to run the driver with `-###`, copy/paste, search for and remove the option you want to skip, and finally run the `-cc1` command... The reason I bring it up is that it's possible people will start using `OptInFFLag` just in order to get this behaviour, not because they intend to add a driver flag. ================ Comment at: clang/lib/Frontend/CompilerInvocation.cpp:3707 #undef OPTION_WITH_MARSHALLING_FLAG + return true; ---------------- I don't have an opinion about whether there should be a newline here, but please make unrelated whitespace changes like this in a separate commit (before/after). ================ Comment at: llvm/utils/TableGen/OptParserEmitter.cpp:460-464 + if (AID < BID) + return -1; + if (AID > BID) + return 1; + return 0; ---------------- I think `array_pod_sort` will use this like a `bool`, similar to `std::sort`, in which case you I think you want: ``` return (*A)->getID() < (*B)->getID(); ``` ================ Comment at: llvm/utils/TableGen/OptParserEmitter.cpp:468-469 + // Restore the definition order of marshalling options. + array_pod_sort(OptsWithMarshalling.begin(), OptsWithMarshalling.end(), + CmpMarshallingOpts); + ---------------- I'm curious if this is necessary. If so, how do the options get out-of-order? Also, a cleaner way to call `array_pod_sort` would be: ``` llvm::sort(OptsWithMarshalling, CmpMarshallingOpts); ``` and I would be tempted to define the lambda inline in the call to `llvm::sort`. If it's not necessary, I suggest replacing with an assertion: ``` assert(llvm::is_sorted(OptsWithMarshalling, ...)); ``` CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D82756/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D82756 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
