[cfe-commits] [patch] rewrite-includes crash support

[David Blaikie]

[bump for Chandler so we can finish off this change]

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:18 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:05 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > The driver support for rewrite includes LGTM, commit away.
>>>
>>> r158463
>>>
>>> > Regarding the crash reporting, that looks too easy! ;]
>>>
>>> It does, doesn't it...
>>>
>>> > Does anything need to be changed in the reproduction script to make it
>>> > use the include-rewritten
>>> > file instead of a fully preprocessed file?
>>>
>>> Ah, I hadn't actually tried the repro script file - I tend to just run
>>> the crashers myself (but of course then I don't get the extra flags,
>>> etc, from the repro).
>>>
>>> The script is generated based on the file name reported as the output
>>> file by the compilation command, as I understand/read it - so it's not
>>> referring to a non-existent file (& the file name remains the same in
>>> any case).
>>>
>>> >  Do we need to change the filename?
>>
>>
>> I should have said filename *extension*.
>>
>>>
>>> It seems to work fine (reckon it'd be appropriate to have a test case
>>> for this that actually executes the crash report script file? that
>>> seems a little nasty, but with some value). The -cc1 command includes
>>> an explicit -x so I don't think there's any file extension based
>>> language detection (so it doesn't try to skip preprocessing, for
>>> example).
>>
>>
>> Wild. I was thinking the '.ii' extension might cause it to do the wrong
>> thing.
>
> Yeah, so did I - but it really does seem to still properly preprocess
> the macros & compile just fine.
>
>> I think we should still fix the extension to be the same as the original file.
>
> Yeah, it seems reasonable to me. See attached.