[PATCH] D141705: [HLSL] [Dirver] add dxv as a Driver Action Job

[Joseph Huber via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

jhuber6 added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/lib/Driver/ToolChains/HLSL.cpp:170
+
+Tool *clang::driver::toolchains::HLSLToolChain::getTool(
+    Action::ActionClass AC) const {
----------------
python3kgae wrote:
> jhuber6 wrote:
> > I feel like this logic should go with the other random `Tool` versions we have in `ToolChain.cpp`. See `ToolChain.cpp:440` and there should be examples of similar tools.
> This is following pattern of MachO::getTool for VerifyDebug.
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/lib/Driver/ToolChains/Darwin.cpp#L1078
> 
> I can add getValidator to HLSLToolChain if that helps.
> 
Yeah, I guess it's a style thing. Personally I don't mind having everything in one place because you need to handle the ActionClass there anyway. But it's not a huge deal. I'll accept either.


================
Comment at: clang/lib/Driver/ToolChains/HLSL.h:53
   static std::optional<std::string> parseTargetProfile(StringRef TargetProfile);
+  bool needValidation(llvm::opt::DerivedArgList &Args) const;
+
----------------
python3kgae wrote:
> jhuber6 wrote:
> > Is `needValidation` a good name here? It's asking more like `hasValidator` or `supportsValidation`.
> It is combination of hasValidator and requireValidator.
> Maybe create hasValidator and requireValidator then move the warning reporting back to Driver?
> Something like
> 
> ```
> if (TC.requireValidator()) {
>     if (TC.hasValidator()) {
>         add the action.
>     } else {
>         report warning.
>     }
> }
> ```
> 
I think keeping the logic as-is and calling it `requiresValidation` would be fine. 


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D141705/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D141705