beanz added inline comments.
================
Comment at: llvm/tools/llvm-objcopy/llvm-objcopy.cpp:404
-int main(int argc, char **argv) {
+int llvm_objcopy_main(int argc, char **argv) {
InitLLVM X(argc, argv);
----------------
aganea wrote:
> Shouldn't we say:
> ```
> int objcopy_main(int argc, char **argv) {
> ```
> here and the other places + all supporting code, if we want `llvm objcopy`
> (without the dash) like @phosek suggests?
I had a different thought for that. I think we want the tools to respond to
llvm-objcopy since we will want them to exist in parallel to binutils tools
just like the current tools do today.
Many of the current tools also support symlink-redirection, to support that
we'll need to have a multiplex where multiple tool names point to the same
`main` function.
Handling that was my point (1) in the `main` commit message, and I intended to
work on it in a follow-on commit.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D109977/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D109977
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
