Fznamznon marked an inline comment as done.
Fznamznon added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Driver/Driver.cpp:2571
// No driver mode exposes -x and /TC or /TP; we don't support mixing them.
assert(!Args.hasArg(options::OPT_x) && "-x and /TC or /TP is not allowed");
}
----------------
MaskRay wrote:
> ```
> - assert(!Args.hasArg(options::OPT_x) && "-x and /TC or /TP is not
> allowed");
> + if (auto *A = Args.getLastArg(options::OPT_x))
> + Diag(diag::err_drv_unsupported_opt_with_suggestion)
> + << A->getAsString(Args) << "/TC' or '/TP";
> ```
Thank you, the suggestion seems reasonable to me. Although, the concrete place
doesn't.
The suggested line to change is under if (we have /TC or /TP argument), so if I
put error emission there it won't be emitted if no /TC or /TP was passed and
the original problem reported in
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/59307 won't be resolved. People
will still be confused by the warning saying `-x c` passed after last input
when in fact they passed `/clang:-x` before the input.
Also, the whole function doesn't return even if diagnostic is emitted, so I put
error emission in a way to not emit a warning saying that -x is passed after
last input together with it, because both errors emitted like this:
error: '-x c' after last input file has no effect
error: unsupported option '-x c'; did you mean '/TC' or '/TP'?
look confusing.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Driver/x-args.c:8
// CHECK: '-x c++' after last input file has no effect
+//
+// RUN: %clang_cl /WX /clang:-xc /clang:-E /clang:-dM %s 2>&1 | FileCheck
-check-prefix=CL %s
----------------
MaskRay wrote:
> Delete `//`
>
Done, thanks.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D142757/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D142757
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
