[PATCH] D73951: [Clang] [Driver]Add logic to search for flang frontend

[Caroline via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

CarolineConcatto added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/test/Driver/flang/clang-driver-2-frontend01.f90:10
+! RUN: cp %clang %t1
+! RUN: %clang --driver-mode=flang -fortran-fe %basename_t.tmp1 -### %s 2>&1 | FileCheck --check-prefixes=ALL %s
+
----------------
awarzynski wrote:
> richard.barton.arm wrote:
> > CarolineConcatto wrote:
> > > richard.barton.arm wrote:
> > > > Does %t1 not work again on this line?
> > > If I don't create the fake link getProgramPath will only return the name, not the entire path.
> > > t1 here is the path for the frontend.  
> > > For instance:
> > > clang --driver-mode=flang -fortran-fe %test
> > > the frontend name is test, but when running it should print:
> > >  <path-to-test>/test -fc1
> > >  without the link it will only print:
> > > test -fc1
> > > Like I said before it is more a preference that actually a requisite.
> > Understood - thanks.
> There's only one run line here, so `--check-prefixes` is not required here. 
> 
> Could you please use the default label instead, i.e. `CHECK`?
Ok!


================
Comment at: clang/test/Driver/flang/flang-driver-2-frontend01.f90:7-8
+! Copy clang to a temporary file to be the driver name
+! RUN: cp %clang %t1
+! RUN: %t1 --driver-mode=flang -###  %s 2>&1 | FileCheck --check-prefixes=ALL %s
+
----------------
awarzynski wrote:
> IIUC, copying is not required here. This could be simplified as:
> 
> ```
> ! RUN: %clang --driver-mode=flang -###  %s 2>&1 | FileCheck --check-prefixes=ALL %s
> ```
> Also, this scenario is already tested in `flang.90`. I'd rather we didn't add this file.
Ok, I agree with you. The other  test is more complete.


================
Comment at: clang/test/Driver/flang/flang-driver-2-frontend02.f90:2
+! Check wich name of flang frontend is invoked by the driver
+
+! The flag -fortran-fe is passed by the driver.
----------------
awarzynski wrote:
> This test is very similar to `clang-driver-2-frontend01.f90` - the scenario tested here is already covered elsewhere and IMO this file can be removed from this patch.
Ok, it is I certain way, as we are only testing the flag being used and not the driver.



Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D73951/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D73951