davide added a comment. In D140224#4014256 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D140224#4014256>, @MaskRay wrote:
> In D140224#4014243 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D140224#4014243>, @rsundahl > wrote: > >>> I'll reject [-\Xparser for a while as well. This is a valid amendment to >>> D139717 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D139717> , so I don't think it needs more >>> approval. >> >> We have projects that are failing because of -Xlinker and I'm not too >> excited about walking through every project we have to find more examples. >> Can we please have a reprieve on deprecating this until every project in the >> world that uses these flags that have existed for a very long time can have >> a chance to at least get timely notification? Why is this any different than >> anything else that gets deprecated? > > Thank you for your reply! If there are more issues > -Xlinker/-Xparser/-Xcctests, ok, I think I'm fine with a Joined -X, but > ideally we can figure out a way to apply that only to Apple platforms. > > (FWIW I feel sad when I made valid objection to D139717 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/D139717>, but that patch landed very soon after > your colleague approved it, leaving me no time to object. > My other objection included the insufficient commit message `-Xfoo` instead > of what's actually used, `internal builds` which seems to hint an internal > workaround, where the tests are located) It's not an internal workaround. In D140224#4014291 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D140224#4014291>, @MaskRay wrote: > 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`. Debian code search and source graphs aren't the universe. There's a lot of code in the world that doesn't get published for a variety of reasons. The gain of this change is very little compared to the pain introduced. Let's give people a window where they can transition, then screw them over. not the other way around. Best, - D > 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
