MaskRay added a comment. In D135076#3831347 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D135076#3831347>, @jhuber6 wrote:
> In D135076#3831340 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D135076#3831340>, @MaskRay wrote: > >> 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. > > The problem here is that the `--offload-*` options are used to enable the > offloading toolchain for some targets (e.g. OpenMP). Would a check on `-o' > that emits a warning if it matches closely a known option work? E.g. > `-offload-arch` would warn that the user may mean `--offload-arch`. If we don't have `Joined` `-o`, we won't have the option collision problem. But we have `Joined` `-o`, and we should not introduce new aliases to collide with `-o`. I am fine if `Joined` `-o` can go away but there are too many uses so such a change would be destructive. My idea is to just disallow `Joined` `-o` when targeting a specific environment (e.g. when offloading toolchain is used). >> This patch probably provides some convenience but regresses other aspects, >> and I think it should be reverted. > > If you think this should be reverted then I'm fine with it. I would like to > see some kind of solution to this problem however, as I have dealt with this > problem many times when working with users. As mentioned, making users stick with more forms instead of all using the canonical form will do harm in other aspects. I have explained these aspects in my previous comment. 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
