================
@@ -535,6 +535,21 @@ void tools::gnutools::Linker::ConstructJob(Compilation &C,
const JobAction &JA,
D.getLTOMode() == LTOK_Thin);
}
+ // Forward the DTLTO options to the linker. We add these unconditionally,
+ // rather than in addLTOOptions() as it is the linker that decides whether to
+ // do LTO or not dependent upon whether there are any bitcode input files in
+ // the link.
+ if (Arg *A = Args.getLastArg(options::OPT_fthinlto_distributor_EQ)) {
+ CmdArgs.push_back(
+ Args.MakeArgString("--thinlto-distributor=" + Twine(A->getValue())));
+ CmdArgs.push_back(
+ Args.MakeArgString("--thinlto-remote-opt-tool=" +
+
Twine(ToolChain.getDriver().getClangProgramPath())));
+
+ for (auto A : Args.getAllArgValues(options::OPT_Xthinlto_distributor_EQ))
+ CmdArgs.push_back(Args.MakeArgString("-mllvm=-thinlto-distributor-arg="
+ A));
----------------
bd1976bris wrote:
As you already worked out I used `cl::opt` options to minimize the changes to
LLD ports and llvm-lto. The syntax is verbose, but LLD is usually invoked via
the compiler driver so the verbose syntax is not exposed. I'm happy to use a
`cl::opt` for this. However, I would like to retain a retain the LLD options
for the COFF port where LLD is often invoked directly. Does that sound ok?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/126654
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
