dexonsmith added a comment.
> Not 100% sure the benefits are worth the added complexity.
I think this is worth it. Names seem pretty clear to me. All around, this seems
a lot more clear to me than the approach you had in the CodeGenOptions patch.
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Frontend/CompilerInvocationTest.cpp:226
ASSERT_THAT(GeneratedArgs,
- Contains(StrEq("-fno-experimental-new-pass-manager")));
+ Not(Contains(StrEq("-fno-experimental-new-pass-manager"))));
ASSERT_THAT(GeneratedArgs,
----------------
Can you clarify why this was dropped? Was it previously emitted due to a
limitation in the implementation, or are we no longer supporting options that
always get emitted for clarity?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D92775/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D92775
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
