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

[Rafael Espíndola via llvm-commits]

> 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?

No, you are right. It is bugpoint, so it probably is not.

>>> 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?

LGTM if in two patches. One with the rename, one with the default change.

Cheers,
Rafael