> On Dec 21, 2017, at 16:39, Alex L <arpha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 21 December 2017 at 12:34, James Y Knight <jykni...@google.com> wrote:
>> I totally agree with moving towards eliminating the -m<os>-version-min
>> flags, it's much better to put it in the target, and will clean up a lot of
>> cruft in the driver, eventually.
>>
>> Now -- we (or anyone else who runs into this) can simply start specifying
>> the version in both locations ("-target x86_64-apple-ios10
>> -mios-simulator-version-min=10"), so as to work with both new and old clang,
>> and be closer to the ultimate goal of having only -target. That's an overall
>> nicer workaround to suggest than switching to -darwin. But, yea, there's no
>> need for *temporary* patch to fix things just for us.
>>
>> However, I do not understand why you're against committing the patch you
>> mention as option #2 -- that seems like it'd be best for all users, by
>> preserving compatibility with existing command-lines. So, I'd still like
>> that change to be committed, permanently, not temporarily. I'm sure we can't
>> be the only ones running clang like "-target x86_64-apple-ios
>> -mios-simulator-version-min=10", and it seems unfortunate and unnecessary to
>> break that, even if it can be worked around.
>>
>> In the future, I'd hope the -m<os>-version-min arguments can be deprecated
>> more and more -- warning whenever you use them to modify the platform or
>> version at all, rather just on specification conflict; then, warn anytime
>> you use them at all; then, remove them. But in the meantime, it seems
>> strictly better to preserve compatibility, don't you think?
>
> + Duncan
>
> Thanks, I think your argument is convincing. I think I will commit the change
> that you're proposing in the near future if there are no further objections.
SGTM.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 21, 2017 2:11 PM, "Alex L" <arpha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks for raising your concerns.
>>
>> We decided to avoid -m<os>-version-min flag in favor of -target to simplify
>> the driver logic and to encourage the adoption of -target. Now after r321145
>> we only warn about -m<os>-version-min flag when the OS version specified in
>> it is different to the OS version specified in target, or when target has no
>> OS version.
>>
>> There are two possible solutions here:
>> 1) You can still use -target with -mios-simulator-version-min as before but
>> you'd have to use '-target=x86_64-apple-darwin' to ensure that the iOS
>> version specified by '-mios-simulator-version-min' is used.
>> 2) I also do have a patch that implements the logic that you propose (use
>> the OS version in -m<os>-version-min flag if target has none). If you
>> believe that the first solution is not suitable for your code then I can
>> commit it. At the same time I believe that we would rather not use this
>> patch, but if it's urgent for your projects then maybe I can land it now and
>> then we can establish some sort of timeline for when it can be reverted?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>> On 21 December 2017 at 08:00, James Y Knight <jykni...@google.com> wrote:
>>> I think if a version number isn't explicitly specified in the -target
>>> value, the value from -m<platform>-version-min ought to still be used, as
>>> it was before.
>>>
>>> Currently, clang will ignore the -m<platform>-version-min version number if
>>> the target has a particular OS specified, even if it has no version number
>>> as part of it.
>>>
>>> (We should be able to workaround this change backwards-compatibly by
>>> specifying in both the -target argument and in the -m<platform>-version-min
>>> arguments, but I do think the behavior should be fixed.)
>
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
