MaskRay added a comment. In D135076#3831307 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D135076#3831307>, @jhuber6 wrote:
> In D135076#3831298 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D135076#3831298>, @MaskRay wrote: > >> We really want these `--offload-*` users to stick with one canonical form, >> not `-offload-*` in some places while `--offload-*` in other places. >> >> Another angle is that people find `-offload-*` working with a new clang may >> try `-offload-*` on an old clang and get `-o ffload-*`. >> >> And `-offload-*` doesn't help misspelled options. > > This is fine, as long as users get more distinct feedback that > `-offload-arch` isn't doing what they think it does. Normally we'd get some > error and a helpful suggestion if the option is misspelled, but with `-o` > options we don't get anything. > My only qualm with the current state is that it's not obvious that > `-offload-arch` is actually `-o ffload-arch` for most cases. You can make `-oxxx` an error if offloading is used (`-o xxx` is still allowed). Then no `--offload-*` needs a `-offload-*` form. This patch probably provides some convenience but regresses other aspects, and I think it should be reverted. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D135076/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D135076 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
