echristo added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D49148#1166429, @ABataev wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D49148#1165826, @echristo wrote: > > > I think you should break it out on an option by option basis. Just warning > > on "non-standard" options won't make as much sense to end users. Perhaps a > > "this option is unsupported on the target you're compiling for" etc. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > 1. I can split it, no problems. > 2. Hmm, actually this what the warning already says. If the option is not > supported it says 'debug option '-xxx' is not supported for target > 'xxx-xxx-xxx''. It does not seem to me like a warning on non-standard option. Let me try to elaborate a bit, I agree that I'm not very clear above. I'm not a fan of the generic "non default debug options". It feels misleading. I think we probably want to separate it by "dwarf extensions", and "dwarf version". As far as the error message itself: "debug option" sounds like an option to debug clang rather than a debug information option. Perhaps say "debug information option" rather than "debug option"? Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D49148 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
