jansvoboda11 added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang/lib/Tooling/DependencyScanning/DependencyScanningWorker.cpp:338
+ // always true for a driver invocation.
+ bool DisableFree = true;
DependencyScanningAction Action(
----------------
I see the driver is adding `-disable-free` conditionally:
```
if (!C.isForDiagnostics())
CmdArgs.push_back("-disable-free");
```
Does that change anything for this patch?
================
Comment at:
clang/lib/Tooling/DependencyScanning/DependencyScanningWorker.cpp:338
+ // always true for a driver invocation.
+ bool DisableFree = true;
DependencyScanningAction Action(
----------------
jansvoboda11 wrote:
> I see the driver is adding `-disable-free` conditionally:
>
> ```
> if (!C.isForDiagnostics())
> CmdArgs.push_back("-disable-free");
> ```
>
> Does that change anything for this patch?
If this is always `true` for our purposes, is there a reason for passing this
argument into `DependencyScanningAction` instead of just hard-coding it there?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D127229/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D127229
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
