[PATCH] Extra Command Line library functionality (option grouping and runtime inspection/modification)

[Andrew Trick]

On May 4, 2013, at 4:07 PM, Dan Liew <daniel.liew at imperial.ac.uk> wrote:

> Sorry Andrew I didn't read your e-mail correctly the first time. I've
> added some primitive tests to "unittests/Support/CommandLineTest.cpp" in
> each patch.
> 
> I have also modified the first patch so that empty option categories are
> not printed in the output of -help, they are however printed in the
> output of -help-hidden.
> 
> The modified patches are attached.
> 
> Something to note is I discovered a problem with one of the tests
> (CommandLineTest.ParseEnvironmentToLocalVar) in "CommandLineTest.cpp".
> This test creates a command line option on the stack. This option is
> subsequently destroyed on leaving the test but the command line system
> still has a pointer to that option. If an attempt is made to access
> registered options (e.g. through ParseCommandLineOptions() or
> getRegisteredOptions() ) after this test the program will SEGFAULT.
> 
> I worked around this by having my tests that need to access registered
> options rule run before the test
> CommandLineTest.ParseEnvironmentToLocalVar.
> 
> This could be fixed in general by implementing destructors for the
> Option objects that unregisters them from the command line system but
> this probably adds unnecessary overhead as the options are intended to
> be declared statically anyway.

Awesome. Committed with no modifications as r181253-4.

Thanks
-Andy

> On 04/05/13 12:47, Dan Liew wrote:
>> See my responses below.
>> On 03/05/13 22:39, Andrew Trick wrote:
>>> Daniel,
>>> 
>>> I reviewed your most recent patch (MOREFIXES) and your
>>> getRegisteredOptions patch. They both look very nice.
>>> 
>>> I have one suggestion. For normal (non-hidden) help, we may have empty
>>> categories, which looks odd. Can you just suppress printing the category
>>> in that case?
>> 
>> Yes I can do that. Would you like empty category printing to be
>> suppressed for -help-hidden as well or should we show it?
>> 
>>> Also, would you mind adding a couple simple tests to CommandLineTest.cpp?
>> 
>> I have not used LLVM's testing infrastructure very much so I'm going to
>> need some guidance here.
>> 
>> I looked at the LLVM testing infrastructure documentation and it
>> mentioned the regression tests (obviously not what I want) and
>> test-suite (sounded promising as documentation said it built whole
>> programs). I took a look at the test-suite but it didn't look
>> appropriate as I could not see a way an obvious way to link to the
>> LLVMSupport library.
>> 
>> I also took a look at the unittests in the LLVM repository and found
>> some existing in "unittests/Support/CommandLineTest.cpp".
>> 
>> Is it here that you would like me to add tests?
>> 
>> If so do you have any suggestions on testing the OptionCategory class? I
>> can test whether or not an option has a category set but there isn't a
>> way (AFAIK) to test the output of --help (which is the whole point of
>> the feature) against some known output in the gtest framework.
>> 
>>> Otherwise, it's ready to commit. Will you need me to check it in?
>> Y
>> Yes I will need you to check it in as I do not have commit access.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Dan.
>> _______________________________________________
>> llvm-commits mailing list
>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>> 
> <0001-ATFIXES-Support-command-line-option-categories.patch><0002-ATFIXES-Implemented-public-interface-for-modifying-registere.patch>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20130506/4e0ed89c/attachment.html>