stephenpeckham added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:230 +- Introduced the ``-mroptr`` option to place constant objects with relocatable + address values in the read-only data section. This option is intended to + be used with the ``-fdata-sections`` option. When ``-mroptr`` is in effect ---------------- "intended" is a bit misleading. It's an error to use -mroptr and -fno-data-sections together. ================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Driver/Options.td:3896 +def mroptr : Flag<["-"], "mroptr">, Group<m_Group>, Flags<[CC1Option]>, + HelpText<"Place constant objects with relocatable address values in the RO data section and imply -bforceimprw when specified at link time">; +def mno_roptr : Flag<["-"], "mno-roptr">, Group<m_Group>; ---------------- Should you add "(AIX only)"? Also, I don't think "imply" is a good choice here. I would say: ... and add -bforceimprw to the linker flags." ================ Comment at: clang/lib/Frontend/CompilerInvocation.cpp:1960 + + // Since the stroage mapping class is specified per csect, + // without using data sections, it is ambiguous what exactly should ---------------- typo ================ Comment at: clang/lib/Frontend/CompilerInvocation.cpp:1961 + // Since the stroage mapping class is specified per csect, + // without using data sections, it is ambiguous what exactly should + // be done for the read-only pointers. Using read-only pointers may cause ---------------- It's not ambiguous to use -fno-data-sections and -mroptr together, but it would be less effective. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D144190/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D144190 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
