jmolloy added a comment.
Hi Rafael,
Thanks for the review!
> This introduces a meaning to -ON during the link. That normally show up by
> people passing CFLAGS when linking.
Yes. The rationale is that with -flto, the link is also part of the compile. I
think it's more surprising that the compiler isn't called with the -O options
than the reverse!
James
================
Comment at: lib/Driver/Tools.cpp:1815
@@ +1814,3 @@
+ } else if (A->getOption().matches(options::OPT_O0)) {
+ CmdArgs.push_back("-plugin-opt=O0");
+ } else {
----------------
rafael wrote:
> Can you refactor these 3 calls to push_back?
Sure!
================
Comment at: lib/Driver/Tools.cpp:1817
@@ +1816,3 @@
+ } else {
+ ToolChain.getDriver().Diag(clang::diag::warn_drv_unused_argument)
+ << A->getAsString(Args);
----------------
rafael wrote:
> Why do you need to manually issue a diagnostic?
>
You're right - I don't. I'll remove this.
Repository:
rL LLVM
http://reviews.llvm.org/D15641
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
