rnk added a comment. In D64458#1577435 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64458#1577435>, @pcc wrote:
> Do we really need to support clang-cl syntax here? Can't the user of > -fthinlto-index= use the regular clang driver? I think it depends on how many compiler flags we have to pass to backend compilation actions. I don't have a good sense of how many of those actually matter. Some flags affect the object file and are not encoded in bitcode, like -ffunction-sections. It's potentially onerous for a build system to have to work out for itself that `cl -O2` implicitly enables `-Gy`, which is the MSVC spelling of `-ffunction-sections`, so therefore we need this other set of backend action flags. It seems nicer to for the build system to just take the first stage command line and re-run it with a new input and this new flag. If we want to make the behavior consistent, I would say we should port this new -x ir behavior over to clang so it's the same as clang-cl. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D64458/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D64458 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
