William Woodruff

I'm seeing this same issue, similar environmental setup as https://github.com/pavdmyt/yaspin/issues/31#issuecomment-475287831: Python 3 (3.10), Linux (Ubuntu 20.04), running in a virtual environment. I'm only familiar with a handful of terminal drawing...

I'd also like to register interest in this. It's not as conceptually clean, but an approach that injects the results of a subshell would be sufficient for many CLIs. Borrowing...

This isn't a catch-all solution, but: perhaps [`clap::ValueHint`](https://docs.rs/clap/3.0.0-beta.5/clap/enum.ValueHint.html) could be extended to include a variant that enables dynamism through a subprocess? What I'm thinking of is something like `ValueHint::Process(String)`, where...

> So you want to create another section that contains the commands used to generate the compilation unit? Yep, exactly. And yeah, I figure I could reuse the current section...

@ianamason we use two techniques: 1. Most build systems respect `CC`, `CXX`, etc., so we simply point those to `blight-cc`, `blight-c++`, etc. 2. If that doesn't work (e.g. if a...

That sounds right, although I'm not 100% sure -- I know they have their own `CMAKE_AR` variable instead, but I'm not sure if that's the sole variable or whether it...

> GLLVM however only produces only one `.foo.c.{o,bc}` tuple, meaning that the `get-bc`-collected bitcode for both `foo.exe` and `foo.patched.exe` is the same (whichever target `make` ran last). To be more...

> I wonder if we can please all of the build systems all of the time. If the output was called `foo_patched` rather than > `foo.patched`, we'd be OK, right?...

Not sure if it'll help, but one of the projects that I use `gllvm` on also uses `blight` for this kind of introspection of the linker and other generic build...

@pietroborrello Out of curiosity, did you see a real build use linker groups in this way? Or was this something you discovered experimentally?