On 16 October 2016 at 22:13, Davide Italiano <dav...@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Sean Silva <chisophu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Nice to see this land! >> >> One nit: >> Currently, doesn't LLD/ELF ignore -plugin-opt? That will mean that if a user >> uses the "gold syntax" then LLD will silently ignore it, which isn't good. >> At the very least, can we issue an error if we see `-plugin-opt jobs=N` and >> suggest the LLD spelling? >> >> Or maybe just accept the gold syntax? Our current handling of `-plugin` and >> `-plugin-opt` is intended to make LLD transparently Do The Right Thing when >> LLD is invoked as if it were gold, so clearly gold compatibility is >> important enough for that. This suggests it is important enough to be >> compatible from a ThinLTO perspective too. >> > > I agree with what you're suggesting. My initial vote would be for > error'ing out on anything we can't understand that's passed via > `-plugin-opt` and see what breaks (and add incremental support for > every feature needed). > Teresa, Rafael, any opinions about it?
I agree. Having clang known if it is using gold or lld is probably not worth it. Cheers, Rafael _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
