[PATCH] D13642: [Bugpoint] Allow fallback to clang

[Davide Italiano via llvm-commits]

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Rafael Espíndola
<rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> +  // Try to fall-back to clang if the user didn't pass GCC as option.
>>> +  if (GCCBinary == "")
>>> +    GCCBinary = "clang";
>>> +
>
> I was actually thinking of
>
>  if (GCCBinary.empty()) {
>   if (gcc exists)
>     GCCBinary = "gcc";
>   else
>     GCCBinary = "clang";
> }
>

I don't mind changing that as you request but is there a real reason
why we can't use clang if available and the user doesn't specify GCC?
The only one I can think of is that this changes the default, and may
be potentially a POLA violation, but is this something really
important?

>> This is still a little bit weird because all the variables have GCC as prefix.
>> If you're fine with this, I'll do a sweep and rename all of them. I
>> thought about 'CCBinary, class CC' rather than 'GCCBinary, class GCC'
>> etc.. but I'm open to new suggestions.
>
> It is OK to rename it, but lets do it in another patch.
>

Are you fine with 'CCBinary' or do you prefer something else?

Thanks,

-- 
Davide

"There are no solved problems; there are only problems that are more
or less solved" -- Henri Poincare