[PATCH] D92012: [clangd][query-driver] Extract target

[Aleksandr Platonov via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

ArcsinX marked 5 inline comments as done.
ArcsinX added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/QueryDriverDatabase.cpp:134
     elog("System include extraction: end marker missing: {0}", Output);
-    return {};
-  }
-
-  for (llvm::StringRef Line : llvm::make_range(StartIt, EndIt)) {
-    SystemIncludes.push_back(Line.trim().str());
-    vlog("System include extraction: adding {0}", Line);
+    return llvm::None;
   }
----------------
Unsure about this.
Should we toss all collected data if end markes was not found?


================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/QueryDriverDatabase.cpp:212
+  if (!Target.empty()) {
+    Cmd.CommandLine.push_back("-target");
+    Cmd.CommandLine.push_back(Target);
----------------
kadircet wrote:
> sammccall wrote:
> > `clang -target foo test.cc` seems to be a hard error in the driver if the target is unknown.
> > (vs likely *some* functionality if we just didn't set the driver)
> > 
> > so this could regress some scenarios. Can we mitigate that?
> > (It's possible that we're running the driver in a mode where we proceed anyway, but I can't remember :-()
> what if target already exists in `Cmd`?
> 
> also it would be nice to use `--target=X` format to be consistent with target inference from invocation name as in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/clang/lib/Tooling/Tooling.cpp#L278.
I failed to find options to process in case of invalid target,  so added target validation.


================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/QueryDriverDatabase.cpp:212
+  if (!Target.empty()) {
+    Cmd.CommandLine.push_back("-target");
+    Cmd.CommandLine.push_back(Target);
----------------
ArcsinX wrote:
> kadircet wrote:
> > sammccall wrote:
> > > `clang -target foo test.cc` seems to be a hard error in the driver if the target is unknown.
> > > (vs likely *some* functionality if we just didn't set the driver)
> > > 
> > > so this could regress some scenarios. Can we mitigate that?
> > > (It's possible that we're running the driver in a mode where we proceed anyway, but I can't remember :-()
> > what if target already exists in `Cmd`?
> > 
> > also it would be nice to use `--target=X` format to be consistent with target inference from invocation name as in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/clang/lib/Tooling/Tooling.cpp#L278.
> I failed to find options to process in case of invalid target,  so added target validation.
We could specify several --target options, the last one will be used. But I am not sure should we override existing or not.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D92012/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D92012