[cfe-dev] [PATCH] -B support in clang

[Roman Divacky]

this patch is not going to get integrated at all. Daniel already
refused to have this functionality. I just posted it to the list
to archive it. ie. when someone in the future googles for clang -B
they can have this patch...

I have no intention to integrate it upstream

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 08:26:04AM -0700, Douglas Gregor wrote:
> 
> On Oct 28, 2009, at 5:51 AM, Roman Divacky wrote:
> 
> >fwiwi:
> >
> >	vlakno.cz/~rdivacky/clang-B.patch
> >
> >this patch implements clang -B. someone might find it useful.
> 
> 
> This is Daniel's domain, but I have two comments and a question:
> 
> +  // HACK
> +  if (C->getArgs().hasArg(options::OPT_B)) {
> +     Arg *B_dir = C->getArgs().getLastArg(options::OPT_B);
> +     Prefix = B_dir->getValue(C->getArgs());
> +  } else {
> +     Prefix = "";
> +  }
> +
> A "HACK" note should at least mention why it's a hack :)
> 
> +std::string Driver::GetPrefix() const {
> +   return Prefix;
> +}
> Must we really copy the prefix string every time we call this? Please  
> return an llvm::StringRef instead.
> 
> The question: this doesn't look like it implements all of the  
> documented semantics of GCC's -B. Is this subset of -B useful enough  
> to be included in Clang? Often, having partly-implemented features can  
> cause more confusion, especially since a partially-implemented -B  
> would mean that we could silently pick up different libraries or  
> executables...
> 
> 	- Doug
>