efriedma added a comment. Or actually, if you really want to discourage people from using them, maybe we could use the LLVM version number in the name, like "--unstable-llvm-option-8" (which would change to "--unstable-llvm-option-9" in in 9.0, etc.). This would allow developers to continue using the same workflows, but it would strongly discourage users from putting them into their build systems.
I don't think the argument that Swift or other users need Xclang options to hide them from users makes sense; stable workflows should use real driver flags. If the flag names are clear that they aren't intended for general use, that should be good enough. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D55150/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D55150 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
