MaskRay added a comment. In D140224#4014246 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D140224#4014246>, @davide wrote:
> In D140224#4014245 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D140224#4014245>, @MaskRay wrote: > >> In D140224#4014234 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D140224#4014234>, @davide wrote: >> >>> In D140224#4014230 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D140224#4014230>, @MaskRay >>> wrote: >>> >>>> In D140224#4014203 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D140224#4014203>, @davide >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> @MaskRay Roy hasn't replied. We found other spellings that break (e.g. >>>>> `-Xcctests` or something). Revert this patch until we find an agreement. >>>> >>>> D139717 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D139717> (this patch reverts) was pushed >>>> when I made valid comments which were ignored. I did not complain for that. >>>> >>>> I don't mind if you work around `-Xcctests` in a similar way. >>> >>> Working around 3 cases creates more complexity than it fixes. >>> We're also not providing a deprecation path for users. This needs to be >>> discussed more thoroughly. I'll go ahead and revert to the previous status. >>> >>> Thanks. >> >> Have you seen https://reviews.llvm.org/D139717#4001712 I have analyzed that >> such `-X*` has `-Wunused-command-line-argument` warning for many many years. >> I'm not sure how is considered insufficient. >> >> "Working around 3 cases creates more complexity than it fixes." the number >> isn't that high. By enumerating the misuse, we have a valid path to remove >> all workarounds as misuses are fixed. >> This made some forward progress. > > You can't just remove options willy-nilly. This is not how drivers work. The > warning says "unused", it doesn't say "it goes away". > If we want to provide a path forward, we first need to reinstate this, then > change the warning, then remove (in 1 year or something). > That's how transitions work. > > HTH. I almost agree with you, but only for actually-used options which do real work instead of ignored options. If it is pure compatibility option, I wish that there is public references instead of pure internal build uses. For Joined `-X` I am unsure I want to take your opinion. Neither sourcegraph nor search/Debian Code Search shows anything about `-Xcctests`. Separate `-Xlinker ` still exists: not removed by this patch. `-Xlinker=` is invalid. Note that many references on a code search website reveal libtool uses instead of compiler driver uses. If your internal build uses many `-X*` forms, I am fine with ignoring them. If there are so many that you want to ignore `-X*`, I think I am fine as well, but ideally restricted to Apple platforms (ideally show some external usage examples). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D140224/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D140224 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
