[PATCH] Add a -verify-pch option to clang -cc1

[Eric Christopher]

       // Verify the output (debug information only for now).
       if (Args.hasArg(options::OPT_verify_debug_info)) {
-        ActionList VerifyInputs;
-        VerifyInputs.push_back(Actions.back());
+        Action *VerifyInput = Actions.back();

Might want to update that comment.

Otherwise, looks fine. Thanks.

-eric


On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Ben Langmuir <blangmuir at apple.com> wrote:
> Okay, I've attached a patch that adds the two subclasses of VerifyJobAction,
> which cleans up one of the rough edges in my original patch where I had to
> reach back into the Arguments to differentiate -verify-pch from
> -fsyntax-only. I also changed the name that -ccc-print-phases prints out
> from 'verify' to 'verify-debug-info' - I assume that's okay, but if other
> tools are expecting the old name, we could change it back.
>
> Ben
>
>
> On Feb 5, 2014, at 3:39 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'd probably split it into two subclasses of Verify. Or split out adding a
> new tool name based on compile time option and adding each action with the
> specific tool based on the command line.
>
> Sorry for terseness, on a phone on a bus. If you need more I'll try to get
> it in a bit.
>
> On Feb 5, 2014 3:29 PM, "Ben Langmuir" <blangmuir at apple.com> wrote:
>>
>> So would the change you're envisioning be to subclass VerifyJobAction
>> and/or add a new ActionClass?  All of the other ActionClasses are
>> unambiguous in what tool they need.
>>
>> Ben
>>
>> On Feb 5, 2014, at 2:35 PM, Ben Langmuir <blangmuir at apple.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sounds reasonable, I'll look into it.
>>
>> Ben
>>
>> On Feb 5, 2014, at 2:33 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The idea was that the hook could be used for any verification, just a
>> specific one of debug at the moment. It can easily be changed to support
>> more verifications (and should). :)
>>
>> -eric
>>
>> On Feb 5, 2014 2:32 PM, "Ben Langmuir" <blangmuir at apple.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 5, 2014, at 11:00 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Out of curiosity would it work to have this as a Verify action rather
>>> > than a Compile action that has no output?
>>> >
>>> > -eric
>>>
>>> VerifyJobAction seems to be specific to verifying debug information.
>>> Perhaps that should change?  Or maybe it should be renamed to
>>> VerifyDebugInfoJobAction?  I'm not sure.
>>>
>>> Ben
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-commits mailing list
>> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>>
>>
>
>