rsmith added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/clang/Driver/Options.td:1337-1340
+def fdigraphs : Flag<["-"], "fdigraphs">, Group<f_Group>, Flags<[CC1Option]>,
+ HelpText<"Enable alternative token representations '<:', ':>', '<%', '%>',
'%:' (default)">;
+def fno_digraphs : Flag<["-"], "fno-digraphs">, Group<f_Group>,
Flags<[CC1Option]>,
+ HelpText<"Disallow alternative token representations '<:', ':>', '<%', '%>',
'%:'">;
----------------
It'd make sense to also list `%:%:` here, particularly because it is controlled
by this flag and isn't technically a digraph.
================
Comment at: lib/Frontend/CompilerInvocation.cpp:2181
+ if (const Arg* A = Args.getLastArg(OPT_fdigraphs, OPT_fno_digraphs)) {
+ // Prevent the user from enabling or disabling digraphs when they are not
supported.
----------------
` *` not `* `, please.
================
Comment at: lib/Frontend/CompilerInvocation.cpp:2183-2185
+ if (!Opts.Digraphs && LangStdArg)
+ Diags.Report(diag::err_drv_argument_not_allowed_with)
+ << A->getSpelling() << LangStdArg->getAsString(Args);
----------------
Do we have any languages that disable digraphs by default? This won't work in
such cases.
And actually... there doesn't seem to be a good reason to disallow enabling
digraphs in C89-like modes, so maybe we should just remove the diagnostic for
this case entirely? We generally don't prevent the user from arbitrarily
combining language features.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48266
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
